You are Here: Home

# Does multiverse theory eliminate the need for a God/Creator?

Announcements Posted on
1. multiverse is UNPROVEN. Everything we know requires a cause a reason to exist.
2. (Original post by j.alexanderh)
Don't dare to 'oh dear' me when you have no idea what you are talking about. MANY THINGS IN QUANTUM MECHANICS ARE NON-DETERMINISTIC - that is, it is an inescapable fact of nature that they are random. Take the motion of the electron around the nucleus of an atom - something else which is a consequence of the Uncertainty Principle. At any given moment, an electron does not have a well defined position and momentum. The more accurately we measure its position, the less accurately we measure its momentum and vice versa. This is not due to the incapability of human measuring equipment, it is a physical law. No matter how advanced our civilization gets, we will never be able to measure accurately both the position and momentum of an electron at the same time. It is not a limit of technology either.

For goodness' sake, in your own example of radioactive decay you admit that the decay of particles is random. It can only be quantified as a probability, in much the same way that the position of an electron can only be given as a probability cloud. This does not mean that the process is not random.

The problem of 'order form chaos' is interesting, and as far as I am aware it has not been fully resolved. Here is a good explanation (but a difficult read, only the second paragraph is necessary): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence

This is in no way supernatural.
If everything at the fundamental level is a probability then why are we able to see all the creation around us in defined patterns? Why isn't it blurred or unviewable?
3. (Original post by digistar_100)
If everything at the fundamental level is a probability then why are we able to see all the creation around us in defined patterns? Why isn't it blurred or unviewable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence paragraph two.

Also, the section headed 'loss of interference and the transition from quantum to classical'.
4. (Original post by digistar_100)
multiverse is UNPROVEN. Everything we know requires a cause a reason to exist.
On the assumptions that:
a) There was some beginning point for the Universe (as without them, your assumption can hold without there being a creator)...
b) Everything really does need a cause and reason to exist (which isn't obvious to me)...

...then yes.

I secretly hope that you will understand it as much as me (hardly at all) and will therefore assume it's correct because it is written by Saichu .
6. (Original post by Chucklefiend)
In fact there is evidence for a multiverse: The Double-slit experiment.

Not only this but it is heavily implied by various theories which attempt to explain the fact that gravity is much weaker than the other natural forces. The basic idea being that we only experience a small percentage of the overall force of gravity, as it is dispersed between higher dimensions. The most famous of these, M-theory, is currently our best attempt to unite quantum mechanics with relativity. In short, if you dismiss the notion of a multiverse, you throw out our most promising field of research for developing our understanding of the cosmos.

The double slit experiment is evidence of the wave nature of particles. A very important experiment, but not much to do with things beyond QM.
7. (Original post by fantafruittwist)
Chill out, as I said I only brought it up as a point of discussion, I in no way endorse nor support QM, I don't know how anyone could without being an "expert" in it, its such a vague and poorly understood field. In any case, I'm not for it or against it, but good informative post, thanks.
8. (Original post by nickbob00)
The double slit experiment is evidence of the wave nature of particles. A very important experiment, but not much to do with things beyond QM.
As I subsequently explained, the video cut off before the most relevant part.

This clip 1:20-2:00 contains the part I originally intended:

9. Psst, postulating a god does nothing to solve the problem. Postulating an intelligent god makes it worse.

Causality is a pretty iffy subject, philosophically speaking, and we have a rather limited imagination. We cannot conceive of there being no beginning to a causal chain, nor can we conceive of there being a first cause. I'm not sure that the problem doesn't originate in our perception/conception.

In any case, talk of the beginnings of time, of dimensionless beings, of omnipotence, of nothingness, is just incoherent word-play. It's a load of pretentiousness dressed in rhetoric cloaked in palaver, hidden behind a veil of... well, nonsense.
10. (Original post by fantafruittwist)
he has made no mistakes in these two videos as far as I am aware.
All he seems to be doing is introducing his trite 'god of the gaps' argument in other interpretations of QM.

And considering he's an evolution theory denier, I really wouldn't recommend him as an unbiased or even credible science orator.
11. (Original post by Chucklefiend)
Sorry, the video cuts off before I thought it did. 1:20-2:00 on this clip spells it out:

I'm sure it wouldn't. However, I'm not sure most theoretical physicists and cosmologists would share your nonchalance.
I'm still not following. I can see why it would incline someone to postulate the existence of multi-verses, but it doesn't seem a necessary step at all, hardly evidence I would think. But whatever, que sais je.

I think a sizeable proportion of theoretical physicists aren't too fond of m-theory/string-theory, either because they see it as a dead end that has eaten up a lot of brain power or because of the lack of testable predictions, its not exactly 'the way science is done' (although physics seems to be transgressing into many realms hitherto untouched). My own aversion to it is far more childish and rather conceited. I intend to go into theoretical physics and I don't want to sit around twiddling my thumbs waiting for evidence of something that might be beyond the scope of experiment. And one more wrong theory just means there is one more thing we can search for.
12. (Original post by Srxjer)
William Lane Craig.
This ^

Also, Carl Sagan <3
13. (Original post by Whatsinaname)

I think a sizeable proportion of theoretical physicists aren't too fond of m-theory/string-theory, either because they see it as a dead end that has eaten up a lot of brain power or because of the lack of testable predictions, its not exactly 'the way science is done' (although physics seems to be transgressing into many realms hitherto untouched). My own aversion to it is far more childish and rather conceited. I intend to go into theoretical physics and I don't want to sit around twiddling my thumbs waiting for evidence of something that might be beyond the scope of experiment. And one more wrong theory just means there is one more thing we can search for.
You're right physicists are pretty split over m-theory, and I'm sure some would be glad to see the back of it. The fact remains however, that without it, we'd essentially be back to square one with regard to unifying relativity and QM.
14. (Original post by digistar_100)
If everything at the fundamental level is a probability then why are we able to see all the creation around us in defined patterns? Why isn't it blurred or unviewable?
I've seen you ask this a few times so I'll tell you.

It's for roughly the same reason that if a flipped 1000000 coins, I'd get somewhere in the ballpark of 500000 heads. Even though each individual coin toss is random, you get some regularity when you have enough of them.

The position of an electron or atom or whatever is random but there's a small region of space where it's most likely to be found and as you get further away from that region, the particle is less likely to be found. If you have billions of atoms, the vast majority of them will be found very close to their "proper place" (ie, where they'd be if you were doing classical physics). So the object they make up will look normal on the macroscopic scale.

Decoherence is to do with why it's very difficult to put macroscopic objects into quantum states. The object's wavefunction interacts with many microscopic objects and gets blurred to the point were it can't interfere with itself. It's tricky to explain. But then it is quantum mechanics...
15. (Original post by fantafruittwist)
I have some videos from a few physics professors discussing quantum fluctuations, I will try and upload them.
Are you seriously calling William Lane Craig a "physics professor"? He's been known to make elementary mistakes on this topic (search the bit where Kolya says "Craig seems a little confused").
16. God sounds really complex so what or who created it/him/her?
17. Nope- human psychology needs someone to look up to and God is probably the most convenient. Its also easier to remember- a very basic example is : "God" has three letters, "Multiverse Theory" has 16. (Its a metaphor).

Speaking of metaphors... wheres the cat?
(You'll get it eventually...)
18. (Original post by Chucklefiend)
What stops the multiverse being infinite, eternal and transcendent of time and cause and effect?
Lack of a beard.
19. (Original post by LaughingBro)
God sounds really complex so what or who created it/him/her?
That defeats the whole point of God.
20. Not if Occam's Razor means anything to you.

## Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
1. this can't be left blank
2. this can't be left blank
3. this can't be left blank

6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

4. this can't be left empty
1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

Updated: March 28, 2011
New on TSR

### Do you trust your uni?

Vote now - you could win an Apple Watch

Study resources
Useful resources

## Articles:

Debate and current affairs forum guidelines