Are there parallel universes?

Post Reply New Topic

Fundamentalists believe in parallel universes? Most are unfamiliar with the concept. And why would they want to believe something that gives an alternative explanation to God?

Well- thats actually one of his more sane, and reasonable (though not necessarly right) pronouncements.

His assertion that "no parallel universes = God existing" is a reference to the following running debate:

The arguement goes "this universe is strangely fine tuned in a way that allows life to exist-why?".

The theists say- there had to be creator to do the fine tuning. Therefore there must be a God. The atheists respond that its just random- so- there must an infinite (or near infinite) number of parallel universes. And this one just happened to be right for life. TV repairman vs infinte random dice throwing.

So - if you could actually disprove parallel Universes- then by default you have proved that God exists (because you've pulled the rug out from under Dawkins et al and their arguement against god).

So what W said makes a certain kind of sense (no parallel universe = God existing).

So, instead of beating up on W for things he didnt say. I will actually address what he is actually saying.

What you're saying makes sense, but it doesnt REALLY make sense:

A) Universes don't have to be parallel. They could be in sequence. Maybe its just one universe that bangs into existence, and then gets destroyed, and then remade again and again, but each time with slightly different laws of physics- and different "preference settings". And this one just happened to be right for life. Then this universe might get thrown back into the vat- and melted down- and recast again- with different tuning again.

B) If there is just one universe, and even if God did do the fine tuning, then: why did he do such a lousy inefficient job of fine tuning?

Very little of this universe supports life. Most of it sterile of life. So this divine fine tuner person did NOT do a very good job of fine tuning even this universe.

In fact, only a very narrowly-defined region is hospitable to Life -- the surface of the Earth. This region runs roughly from the bottom of the ocean to about 20 miles up.

The rest of the universe is a sterile vacuum, super-heated gas, or infertile rock.

No, the universe is not fine-tuned for human life; otherwise, humans would not need wrap themselves in controlled environments (submarines, airliners, space suits, et cetera) in any environment other than the one they evolved in.

Why is it either a multiverse or God?

I think it's just the way things happened to work out and we're fussing about it for no reason. I have noticed that people seem to see humans' existence as "miraculous." Honestly, we're just one more of the universe's creations. No God or multiverse, just biological happenstance.

Exactly.

No what you haven't explained is whether the universe is "fine tuned so that life has a 1 in a trillion chance of existing on any given planet" or if it's "fine tuned so that life is commonplace".

If you mean that it's fine tuned so that life has a 1 in a trillion chance of existing than you're right. Just look at everywhere else. The universe is barren. That's why I said it's not fine tuned for life even though I'm alive to write that.

What I don't understand is how you're many worlds theory couldn't be replaced by a many planets theory and still explain the same thing.

Life requires so many specific things to happen at once in a given place. The universe is so large that there are a 1000 times a trillion places. So it's no wonder that life is going to exist somewhere given there are so many possible places for it to emerge. Even if it's extremely unlikely it has so many chances to happen that it's going to happen somewhere. It has so many chances even within just 1 universe that a second universe isn't even necessary.

How does your multi-verse idea explain this any better than a many planets concept?

Because I was talking about physical constants. If many of the constants are even 2% off then life is impossible in that universe. That is why we need many universes. It is then not a miracle that we inhabit a universe that has such an incredibly unlikely set of constants, that together are required for life.

You guys are totaly missing the point. If the constants are not exact (defying probability ) NO life is possible. Please stop the stawmen. I never said that the universe is perfect for our comfort.

If there are no other universes, then the fact that the constants in our (and the only universe ) are so improbable that it is like saying, well it is just a fact that when I tossed a coin it came up heads 10,000 times in a row. That is simply the way it is. There is no reason behind such an improbable event.

[1] What did I say that was insane? That ISIS must be destroyed? That Wall Street stole money from us?
A) The oscillatory universe was proven wrong. Besides the quantum mechanics idea of Evertt many worlds is more elegant.
B) Excellent argument! Thanks for agreeing with me! Of the two options the parallel universe theory makes more sense than the God hypothesis.

Sometimes things just go the way they go. That we exist is not proof that there is more than one universe. I would assert that it's more probable that there is one universe where we chanced to evolve, than that there are many universes and who knows how many realities.

Again, our existence is not that significant.

Before anyone gets upset , backets ( [ ] ) are a gammatical convention that means that everything between the brackets ( in this case the "1") is added to the quote and not part of the quote.
I used the brackets to make my responses correlate to each point made in the quote.

Actually, the parallel universe hypothesis makes us less significant. So you are saying that the incredibly improbable convergence of incredibly improbable precise constants is just the way it is and needs no explanation?

There's no real proof to this:

But I believe there is one universe at present, and that it is infinite.

I believe the "Big Bang" jumpstarted the universe. so to speak, rather than actually create it.

What was before the present universe? Perhaps a previous universe?

That is what I am saying. An incredible sequence of events is needed for ants to exist, but you don't see them getting all excited about it.

Yes, evolution is unlikely on a universal scale. * It is like a smaller version of the parallel universes hypothesis .In other words, the conditions for life to evolve on earth were there, not because of design,but because in such a huge universe it is highly probable that at least one planet would have the conditions necessary for life.
Similarly, the fact that our universe's constants are perfect for life is not a miracle.
* It is illogical to think evolution occurs on every planet.