What is the difference between belief in a multiverse and belief in God?

[Luminous]

Ooh! I should have mentioned this one as well: YouTube - Carl Sagan on "God" and "gods"

awsome!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yeah, he was a great communicator, and a great man of peace, we could use another Sagan. But he was never afraid to drop in an atheist comment or two when it suited him. I'm not sure he is a good standard of neutrality. I suppose if Davies has swung too far one way then I'm happy for him to he serve as a counterwieght for those who tend to swing the other.

He wasn't neutral about many things, from alien abductions to astrology and nuclear proliferation. But he was candid and he got the science across accurately. Neutrality is overrated anyhow.

Dawkins demands falsifiability of the God-idea, and yet his touted explanation is totally unfalsifiable. If it's not extraordinary it's certainly very cheeky!

He doesn't demand the God-idea, or any idea, be falsifiable. He demands that our confidence in an idea be proportional to the idea's coherence, falsifiability, and supporting evidence. For him to entertain multiverses as his "preferred explanation" is consistent with this demand; for (some) theists to be absolutely certain in a particular God is not.

Imho: While certain ideas of origins may fall in and out of favor with certain atheistic scientists, an underlying idea seems to never go away: that is, the dogmatic belief that the universe is of natural origin and no other. This is often infered or implied in the popular science/atheist literature as a kind of 'certain' scientific truth, despite it not actually being so. Contrary to what many think, it is unscientific. Science is only tasked with explaining the natural, not declaring the extent of what is natural when it cannot see that far. The industry of atheists who are also scientists who are also popular authors has become quite sizeable and rather full of claims that push in that direction. I'm all for speculation and new ideas, but when a scientist deliberately dismisses the idea of non-natural origins using an evidence-free concept, what does that tell us? It tells me that he sees exclusively natural origins as 'certain truth', so much so that supporting claims do not require evidence. It's one thing to believe in evidence-free multiverses, but quite another to bash evidence-free theists around the head with it as Dawkins does.

Well of course I have a different opinion, but not entirely different; well said, I cede the last word to you my friend.

Indeed. Any of your points I did not respond to I am generally in agreement with. Always good to see you in action Mr S.

It's always good to see rocketman, too, when he comes blasting through the stratosphere to visit RF.

 

[Willamena]

A multiverse is a multiverse; "God" is "God'.

Hope that helps.

 

[rojse]

Lol, I can't help throwing in a quote from Peter Woit's blog:

"Perhaps the LHC will revive the subject of particle theory, by producing a wormhole that will take the world back to its other end, opened up in 1985 by a DeLorean in the movie, from there setting us off into a more promising part of the multiverse."

He is a mathematician and theoretical physicist who wrote a scathing book on String Theory (and Multiverses). May I suggest you read it?

It is fortuitous that the particle accelerator is not based on ideas proposed in string theory.

What the...? I said you cannot pursue multiverses in an empirical sense, yet.

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: \-i-kəl\
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic \-ik\
Function: adjective
Date: 1569
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>

Please do not insult me by providing a definition for a word that I know.


However, I might have been somewhat incorrect in my previous posts, in the presumption that there would be no evidence in this universe of evidence of other universes:


Multiverse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Laura Mersini-Houghton claims that the WMAP cold spot may provide testable empirical evidence for a parallel universe within the multiverse. According to Max Tegmark,[2] the existence of other universes is a direct implication of cosmological observations. Tegmark describes the set of related concepts which share the notion that there are universes beyond the familiar observable one, and goes on to provide a taxonomy of parallel universes organized by levels

Even if we do not accept this hypothesis, perhaps there are other types of evidence which we do not have the expertise to ascertain yet.

You've lost me. What concepts? I'm just pointing out that we don't and currently cannot know if multiverses exist.

The concepts that you discussed before as being good mathematically but unsupported - string theory, and the K4 Crystal, for example. You dismissed these without stating a reason, and I had merely presumed that with such an authoritative statement that you might have some credentials to back this up, (I wanted to know if you were more knowledgeable than myself on this subject) are or failing this, the credentials of another person making this statement.

It is both my friend.

It's an attempt to discuss alternate universes in consideration of ours. It's based on philosophy, rather than mathematics.

 

[rocketman]

Please do not insult me by providing a definition for a word that I know.

I am sorry that you were insulted on account of something I have written. After you seemingly attempted to define falsification (which I already know) I thought definitions were fair game. We often seem to misunderstand each other rojse, perhaps we should not take each others words to heart so quickly.

Even if we do not accept this hypothesis, perhaps there are other types of evidence which we do not have the expertise to ascertain yet.

Indeed there are many ideas beyond the popular ones you cite, all of them projecting methods of detecting indirect evidence. Unfortunately none of them, as in zero, are able to project a method in which to confirm that any such indirect evidence is not certainly in and of itself of natural origin of this universe. For this reason amongst others the Davies and Woits of the world are so critical of the excessive way some have promoted multiverse theory as if it's predictions were falsifiable in the traditional sense.

The concepts that you discussed before as being good mathematically but unsupported - string theory, and the K4 Crystal, for example. You dismissed these without stating a reason,

Not 'unsupported'. Rather, not necessarily having a prior physical existence. I'm not sure how I dismissed them when it was I that introduced them. Others seemed to have understood. I'm not saying the math is useless, I'm saying it's no guarantee of success no matter how good the numbers line up. I'm saying let's be careful not to get carried away with multiverses based on numbers alone, especially given that there is no physical evidence, ala superstrings, k4 crystals etc. Do you see what I meant now?

It's an attempt to discuss alternate universes in consideration of ours. It's based on philosophy, rather than mathematics.

I would agree that multiverse theory is often pursued as an attempt to answer the anthropic principle. I would add that it is more than that, having re-emerged independantly after having been naturally suggested by the mathematics of quantum theory. It was only natural that those who wrestle with the anthropic pinciple would pick up the mathematics and run with it.

 

[crystalonyx]

A multiverse is a multiverse; "God" is "God'.

Hope that helps.

Define "god".

 

[Willamena]

Define "god".

Just so.

 

[logician]

I think multiverse theories pretty much make the god concept dead.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

When it comes to determinism, aren't we just choosing one unknown over the other, based on our own personal bias?

If i believe in a multiverse, then i believe that there are several universes.
If i believe in God then i believe in some "being" sending us rules and telling us what to do.

The first has no effect on me or on life.
The second has.

 

[idea]

I did not read the entire thread, did someone post this Discovery article yet?
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sc...t:int=0&-C=

Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory
quote:
We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible...

Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet to endure for a few fleeting ticks of the cosmic clock. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
... personally, I don't see evidence of another universe, I can only see the one that I am in right now. From what we can see, it appears that the universe has been custom made for us. Looks like there is a God to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah, he was a great communicator, and a great man of peace, we could use another Sagan. But he was never afraid to drop in an atheist comment or two when it suited him. I'm not sure he is a good standard of neutrality. I suppose if Davies has swung too far one way then I'm happy for him to he serve as a counterwieght for those who tend to swing the other.

One shouldn't be afraid to say what he thinks. Arguably more so when it counters superstitious belief.

Rojse raised a good point; neutrality is indeed overrated, at least in this matter. There is no good reason to even attempt to be "neutral" in the tired, so-called "conflict" between atheism and superstition.

Sagan IMNSHO has in fact done more good to religion than to science itself (or even to the spread of scientific knowledge) by clarifying just how pointless it is to basis one's own beliefs in superstition. Religion can, should and ought to outgrow superstition.

 

[rocketman]

Rojse raised a good point; neutrality is indeed overrated,

I think it was Mr Spinkles who raised it.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

I did not read the entire thread, did someone post this Discovery article yet?
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sc...t:int=0&-C=

Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory
quote:
We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible...

Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet to endure for a few fleeting ticks of the cosmic clock. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
... personally, I don't see evidence of another universe, I can only see the one that I am in right now. From what we can see, it appears that the universe has been custom made for us. Looks like there is a God to me.

The first statement in the artice is already nonsense:

Our universe is perfectly tailored for life

There is no evidence that the universe is tailored and it definetly is not perfectly tailored for life. On must not look far to see that it definetly is a universe with not much life in it !

As for your impression that the universe has been "custom made for us". Would you care to elaborate on how you got that idea ?

 

[logician]

I did not read the entire thread, did someone post this Discovery article yet?
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sc...t:int=0&-C=

Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory
quote:
We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible...

Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet to endure for a few fleeting ticks of the cosmic clock. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
... personally, I don't see evidence of another universe, I can only see the one that I am in right now. From what we can see, it appears that the universe has been custom made for us. Looks like there is a God to me.

This sounds a lot like the ancient "earth is the center of ther universe" theory.