Article Claims that the Multiverse is compatible with religion

Long time, no see. Sorry about the lapse. Here is an interesting link that seems to suggest that belief in God is not only compatible with the Multiverse, but might actually be required by it.

The article is cautious and careful. The author seems to be saying that an infinite multiverse could give birth to a Universe in which an all-powerful intelligence evolves that is also compassionate. In this he gives credit to Frank Tipler, who was one of the first to suggest that a concept of "God" could arise from cosmology. But, he is careful not to endorse scientism in religion.

Forwarding:

www.scholardarity.com...

Relevant quote from the article:

"Allow me an aside for a minute. There is actually a bit of fun we could have with the multi-verse theory if we were to rely on the premise that potentialities translate in to actualities. Let us assume that it is correct that an infinite number of universes would mandate that every probability becomes an actuality. In other words, assume for the sake of argument that Krauss is right, that an infinite number of universes means that all possible physical constants are covered. Extend this further and say that one universe might evolve along something akin to that posited by Frank Tipler, evolving a super-consciousness that continues on to infinity. That super-consciousness would become progressively more powerful. It could extend in to infinity and become omniscient as well as omnipotent. This possibility would then hold that time travel becomes possible for this consciousness. It could even extend its reach to all branes, and all time periods within those branes. It could then engineer the physical constants of all other universes. Eventually, all universes become “biocentric,” or at least those destined to be such by the will of an infinite mind. If multiple such intelligences arise, then all forms of this consciousness merge in to one because infinite consciousness would also be infinitely peaceful. Infinities do not war with infinities because to do so would create mathematical paradoxes and no infinite consciousness would want that, and so they merge.
Now, here is the fun part. If there are an infinite number of universes now—“now” being a problematic concept in this context, but one that seems to be accepted by physicists—-then one or more are bound to be infinitely old. This argument derives from the argument of probability from infinity, so it cannot be denied if indeed we are to hold probability arguments from infinity. Holding to the given premise, there are Big Bangs would have happened in the infinite past. Of course, it could also be that “past” is not a relevant concept outside of a given universe. Hence, if such a consciousness could arise then its reach would already be here, now, at this time. Indeed, even if such a universe will not emerge until the infinite future, its reach is here now since time would have no meaning for an infinite consciousness. Its reach would even extend infinitely in to the past. There would never be a time in which this consciousness would not reach. What this would mean is that out of the supposition of a purely random universe you then have a consciousness that is infinitely ordered, and that this happened infinitely long ago. Indeed, even if we extended our reach to an infinite past, we would posit that the consciousness described would still be infinitely old since the infinite past would still have an infinite past and that past in turn has an infinite past, ad infinitum. The infinite past would be enough to have already evolved our infinite consciousness since it already exists with an infinite past. Out of the multi-verse argument one then has a design argument of sorts, one that is not traditional theism but which would still be interesting."

www.scholardarity.com...

Any essay that uses the word 'scientism' to describe the Anthropic Principle is an essay written by an idiot.

space and time, as we understand not a measurable particle, is infinite, therefore these posibilities exist somewhere at sometime. multiuniversal theory is mindblowing when time is factored in, and as the begining of time was triggered by the end of an unknown event. thinking that intelligent life could be trillions of years old or more raises so many questions. If omnipresent and omnipotent, how many seeds are planted that we are unaware of? they could range in the millions by basic theory alone, thanks for the headache, S&F...Oh, and welcome back!

Originally posted by EarthEvolves
Long time, no see. Sorry about the lapse.

No problem, friend, somehow we made it without you!

Here is an interesting link that seems to suggest that belief in God is not only compatible with the Multiverse, but might actually be required by it.

One may believe "God", "ghod" "Infinite Intelligence" etc. as one wishes. Focus on the afterlife and how it should affect your present, material life.

All then shall be well.

reply to post by Astyanax


I think the author meant "reductionism." Actually, he appeared sympathetic to the Anthropic idea in a way.

Never mind the article...the order of comparison in the title should have been the other way around to reflect the reality of the situation...

A99

The author believes in some kind of Anthropic principle (or "biocentric" more broadly). My sense is that his use of "scientism" is simply to object to an overly simplistic claim that Quantum Physics "proves" religion.

This is entirely interesting and I haven't read the whole thing yet, but here's my conundrum....which this brings to mind.

I started to write a book (future modern fantasy), which doesn't start very well for us all,
anyway, I have (I believe) visited two sites described in that book, astrally/dream/whatever.

So either, these two places exist (although slight difference in one) and it was written from a memory/shared view/beamed idea (think gifts/talents, same place that comes from),

OR by the writing of the thing (passion employed, in which compassion halted in the end), it set up a subconscious 'place' to explore, and my mind created it.

what do you think, which is more likely?

reply to post by EarthEvolves


Even allowing Krauss enough rope to hang himself is where I draw the line, regardless of what's being examined.

His assertion that infinite numbers of universes spring up whenever any potential is realized (each of these universes suddenly appearing to express the potentials that weren't realized) - if one takes all the potentials that are (and aren't) realized within just the city limits of Cleveland, Ohio, over the course of one day - quickly becomes an assertion that violates pretty much everything that has ever proven to be a basis of readily perceptible reality. It isn't realistic, even if you only had to deal with the massive production of potentials within that one city during that one day - any day.

Take the quantum of action - whatever the rate of unit replacement is - as the base quantized rate of potential emergence (hell, we can use the standard photon packet rate, since it's already been established) and figure out how much auto-animate holon existence there is within the city limits of Cleveland during a typical day. Then calculate how many quantum units are replaced by succeeding units (at the standard photon packet rate) over the course of that same day. And then toss in a reasonable number of alternative results per potential, as each quantum unit slips into the rearview mirror for each auto-animate holon that exists within the Cleveland city limits, as they all carry on with realized and unrealized potentials for the next 24 hours.

Then, take that number of universes, and do the same math, only estimating the entire population of auto-animate holons within each universe launching the same amount of universes over the course of that day as a result of every realized and unrealized potential. And then do the same for every universe that pops out of every single quantum unit's appearance within every one of those universes, and then keep on going. And there's no stopping - ever - since we're talking about a universe launching requirement that is inherently primordial and therefore absolute in its relentless activity. Never stopping, and having existed always, apparently.

It gets foolish if you don't simply toss the word "infinite" at it, and then go crack a beer in front of the TV set.

Hell, I believe a lot more in a god with a Santa Claus beard than I believe in Krauss's multiverse theory. I believe that I'm God with a Santa Claus beard more than I'll ever believe in Krauss's multiverse theory. It's completely ludicrous. He's an idiot - not only for dreaming it up, but mostly for putting is name on it.

reply to post by NorEaster


My intuitive sense is that there are other Universes. But, the only ones I have experiences with are those with life.


Make of that statement what you will.