The Multiverse????

[PoliticalChic]

PC, you don't think there could be dimensions and entities outside the visible light spectrum?

I don't know what, but there has to be.

Not sure how you are applying this to the idea of a multiuniverse....where the laws of physics work in exact reverse.....

....but, absolutely...

1.....our sensory system actually distorts the information that we do collect. For example, there is no such thing as color in the real world: color is made in the mind based on the wavelength information that the eyes send to the brain.

2. And, when we look at a rock, or any solid material, what we are actually seeing is swarms of subatomic particles with lots of empty space between; over 99% of the rock is empty space. Yet, that’s not what our limited senses and processing center tell us is true and real.
3. So, do we gather and understand half of what there is to know about the universe? A tenth? A millionth? Is it possible that there is a force, God, in the universe, and we are unable to process the information due to our limited senses and limited ability to interpret sensory data? Absolutely. Chapter nine of Parker's "The Genesis Enigma"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Please.....let's not spend the time and space commensurate with all you don't know or don't understand.....I have a full and long life to get on with.

Simply respond to this:
Are you ready to expound on a belief that there are universes where objects 'fall' upwards and friction causes cold?

Because those 'scientific facts' are embedded in the multiverse theory.



I await your explanation with bated breath.

I await your proof with a cup of coffee

Let us embark on what we both know it a flight of fancy, and imaginary journey.....the assumption that honesty plays any...even the most infinitesimal element of your character.


Under such guidance, your post would have been written as follows:

"Aha!
Of course.....now I see how ridiculous my original presumption was....that scientists don't produce offal such as the 'multiverse theory.'
I recognize that there is no indication outside of the realm of a child's imagination, that things can fall away from the center of a planet....reverse gravity.....or that friction would cause cold rather than heat.

My most abject apologies....I recognize your cognizance is of a far higher iteration than mine!

I offer penitential prostration!"


That is what you would have posted....if you were honest.

Very amusing, but I'm still waiting on you to prove it wrong. Coffee is gone, but I've got the popcorn popping

I was wrong?

It seems it is not just your honesty that is in short supply.
It is your intellect as well.


Take a seat with the other moron, GT.

Hmmm...still no proof.

But what a talented dancer you are!

The proof, of course, is there.

The prob is that you aren't all there.

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."
Thomas Paine

 

[Mad Scientist]

Maybe the ability to see a bigger light spectrum would enable that part of your brain that would allow you to see Multiverses and Entities (if they even exist)

I dunno', but it's interesting to think about.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe the ability to see a bigger light spectrum would enable that part of your brain that would allow you to see Multiverses and Entities (if they even exist)

I dunno', but it's interesting to think about.

I gave two aspects that must be accepted in order to believe a multiverse thesis....

a. that there are planets that operate via anti-gravity...things fall away from mass

b. that friction produces cold.


Would the ability to see more of the spectrum entice you to accept those premises?

 

[georgephillip]

I'm gonna stick to this thread...and you may benefit from what it will contain before I conclude....

....but you may wish to review this one:
America Without God No Moral Facts US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You said "In actuality, the faith and belief that was once invested in religion is now, in the same way and to the same degree, in what we call 'science.'"

If you're serious about sticking to this thread, please be good enough to define your key terms.

Do you believe faith and belief are overlapping or separate spheres?

Do you believe faith is irrational, i.e., a belief that can not be tested?

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. Then there is the argument called 'the anthropic principle:'


"In astrophysics and cosmology, the anthropic principle(fromGreek anthropos, meaning "human") is the philosophical consideration that observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it... the Universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. ...

.... the universe's fundamental constants happen to fall within the narrow range thought to be compatible with life."
Anthropic principle - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


Theological evidence that the universe has been 'made' for us, for mankind?


Well...how do the atheists defend against this arguement?

Answer: the Multiverse Theory.


a. "…according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen.

For example, if the nuclear force were a few percentage points stronger than it actually is, then all the hydrogen atoms in the infant universe would have fused with other hydrogen atoms to make helium, and there would be no hydrogen left. No hydrogen means no water. Although we are far from certain about what conditions are necessary for life, most biologists believe that water is necessary. On the other hand, if the nuclear force were substantially weaker than what it actually is, then the complex atoms needed for biology could not hold together.

As another example, if the relationship between the strengths of the gravitational force and the electromagnetic force were not close to what it is, then the cosmos would not harbor any stars that explode and spew out life-supporting chemical elements into space or any other stars that form planets. Both kinds of stars are required for the emergence of life. The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life. The recognition of this fine tuning led British physicist Brandon Carter to articulate what he called the anthropic principle, which states that the universe must have the parameters it does because we are here to observe it.

Actually, the word anthropic, from the Greek for “man,” is a misnomer: if these fundamental parameters were much different from what they are, it is not only human beings who would not exist. No life of any kind would exist." http://www.harpers.org/archive/2011/12/0083720



Get that?

The multiverse theory is an attack on the view that a Creator put our universe together to benefit his creation, mankind.

So.....atheist scientists can ignore how the parameters of our universe fit perfectly conditions necessary for mankind by saying that we just happen to be one of an infinite number of universe.



So...which is there more proof for...the existence of God, or the existence of an infinite variety of universes?

For which is there less evidence?

 

[Liminal]

Other verses (universe means 1, 'universes' is an oxymoron,) doesn't mean physics work differently or absurdly. Should ask yourself though why you seem to believe it does.

Because I understand the concept and you don't.

That is the funniest thing I've read today.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Other verses (universe means 1, 'universes' is an oxymoron,) doesn't mean physics work differently or absurdly. Should ask yourself though why you seem to believe it does.

Because I understand the concept and you don't.

That is the funniest thing I've read today.

Funny how things she understands are cut n pastes.

 

[Liminal]

If ya don't like science and disbelieve in it, how is it you're on a plastic electronic computer right now? If you don't udnerstand something that'sfine, but because you personally don't udnerstand things doesn't mean they aren't in fact true or likely.

There's observational evidence for the multiverse theory. Isn't simply something some drunk physicist came up with one night and jotted down on a bar napkin.

Mysterious dark flow at the edge of the universe - physicsworld.com

I wonder how she thinks science works without theories.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm gonna stick to this thread...and you may benefit from what it will contain before I conclude....

....but you may wish to review this one:
America Without God No Moral Facts US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You said "In actuality, the faith and belief that was once invested in religion is now, in the same way and to the same degree, in what we call 'science.'"

If you're serious about sticking to this thread, please be good enough to define your key terms.

Do you believe faith and belief are overlapping or separate spheres?

Do you believe faith is irrational, i.e., a belief that can not be tested?

Do you believe in the 'Multiverse Theory'?

 

[Coyote]

I await your proof with a cup of coffee

Let us embark on what we both know it a flight of fancy, and imaginary journey.....the assumption that honesty plays any...even the most infinitesimal element of your character.


Under such guidance, your post would have been written as follows:

"Aha!
Of course.....now I see how ridiculous my original presumption was....that scientists don't produce offal such as the 'multiverse theory.'
I recognize that there is no indication outside of the realm of a child's imagination, that things can fall away from the center of a planet....reverse gravity.....or that friction would cause cold rather than heat.

My most abject apologies....I recognize your cognizance is of a far higher iteration than mine!

I offer penitential prostration!"


That is what you would have posted....if you were honest.

Very amusing, but I'm still waiting on you to prove it wrong. Coffee is gone, but I've got the popcorn popping

I was wrong?

It seems it is not just your honesty that is in short supply.
It is your intellect as well.


Take a seat with the other moron, GT.

Hmmm...still no proof.

But what a talented dancer you are!

The proof, of course, is there.

The prob is that you aren't all there.

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."
Thomas Paine

You're so cute But...you're getting a bit boring.

 

[Coyote]

If ya don't like science and disbelieve in it, how is it you're on a plastic electronic computer right now? If you don't udnerstand something that'sfine, but because you personally don't udnerstand things doesn't mean they aren't in fact true or likely.

There's observational evidence for the multiverse theory. Isn't simply something some drunk physicist came up with one night and jotted down on a bar napkin.

Mysterious dark flow at the edge of the universe - physicsworld.com

I wonder how she thinks science works without theories.

Science is a magical marxist plot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Other verses (universe means 1, 'universes' is an oxymoron,) doesn't mean physics work differently or absurdly. Should ask yourself though why you seem to believe it does.

Because I understand the concept and you don't.

That is the funniest thing I've read today.

Funny how things she understands are cut n pastes.

Just so you are not quickly identified as the moron you are....could you explain what 'cut and paste' has to do with this thread, other than the way the material is presented and supported?

 

[Liminal]

Other verses (universe means 1, 'universes' is an oxymoron,) doesn't mean physics work differently or absurdly. Should ask yourself though why you seem to believe it does.

Because I understand the concept and you don't.

That is the funniest thing I've read today.

Funny how things she understands are cut n pastes.

You don't say, I would have sworn she was a close professional associate of Michio Kaku.

 

[Liminal]

If ya don't like science and disbelieve in it, how is it you're on a plastic electronic computer right now? If you don't udnerstand something that'sfine, but because you personally don't udnerstand things doesn't mean they aren't in fact true or likely.

There's observational evidence for the multiverse theory. Isn't simply something some drunk physicist came up with one night and jotted down on a bar napkin.

Mysterious dark flow at the edge of the universe - physicsworld.com

I wonder how she thinks science works without theories.

Science is a magical marxist plot.

Plus we don't want science getting in the way of God's will.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let us embark on what we both know it a flight of fancy, and imaginary journey.....the assumption that honesty plays any...even the most infinitesimal element of your character.


Under such guidance, your post would have been written as follows:

"Aha!
Of course.....now I see how ridiculous my original presumption was....that scientists don't produce offal such as the 'multiverse theory.'
I recognize that there is no indication outside of the realm of a child's imagination, that things can fall away from the center of a planet....reverse gravity.....or that friction would cause cold rather than heat.

My most abject apologies....I recognize your cognizance is of a far higher iteration than mine!

I offer penitential prostration!"


That is what you would have posted....if you were honest.

Very amusing, but I'm still waiting on you to prove it wrong. Coffee is gone, but I've got the popcorn popping

I was wrong?

It seems it is not just your honesty that is in short supply.
It is your intellect as well.


Take a seat with the other moron, GT.

Hmmm...still no proof.

But what a talented dancer you are!

The proof, of course, is there.

The prob is that you aren't all there.

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."
Thomas Paine

You're so cute But...you're getting a bit boring.

If ya don't like science and disbelieve in it, how is it you're on a plastic electronic computer right now? If you don't udnerstand something that'sfine, but because you personally don't udnerstand things doesn't mean they aren't in fact true or likely.

There's observational evidence for the multiverse theory. Isn't simply something some drunk physicist came up with one night and jotted down on a bar napkin.

Mysterious dark flow at the edge of the universe - physicsworld.com

I wonder how she thinks science works without theories.

Science is a magical marxist plot.

Is that what you....believe....I almost said 'think'....this thread indicates?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If ya don't like science and disbelieve in it, how is it you're on a plastic electronic computer right now? If you don't udnerstand something that'sfine, but because you personally don't udnerstand things doesn't mean they aren't in fact true or likely.

There's observational evidence for the multiverse theory. Isn't simply something some drunk physicist came up with one night and jotted down on a bar napkin.

Mysterious dark flow at the edge of the universe - physicsworld.com

I wonder how she thinks science works without theories.

I've seen your posts.

I suspect there isn't enough band width to list all of the things you wonder about.

 

[Coyote]

Very amusing, but I'm still waiting on you to prove it wrong. Coffee is gone, but I've got the popcorn popping

I was wrong?

It seems it is not just your honesty that is in short supply.
It is your intellect as well.


Take a seat with the other moron, GT.

Hmmm...still no proof.

But what a talented dancer you are!

The proof, of course, is there.

The prob is that you aren't all there.

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."
Thomas Paine

You're so cute But...you're getting a bit boring.

If ya don't like science and disbelieve in it, how is it you're on a plastic electronic computer right now? If you don't udnerstand something that'sfine, but because you personally don't udnerstand things doesn't mean they aren't in fact true or likely.

There's observational evidence for the multiverse theory. Isn't simply something some drunk physicist came up with one night and jotted down on a bar napkin.

Mysterious dark flow at the edge of the universe - physicsworld.com

I wonder how she thinks science works without theories.

Science is a magical marxist plot.

Is that what you....believe....I almost said 'think'....this thread indicates?

Nah. It's not Marxists. It's hamsters running the great cosmic wheel.

And then...the big Hamster Bang.

It was messy...but...it conquored the Dark Matter

and He said Let there be Light

and the Great Hamster was reborn unto us to bring us salvation in the form of Multiverse redemption.

Or...maybe it was actually gerbils...they aren't clear on that point

 

[Mad Scientist]

I gave two aspects that must be accepted in order to believe a multiverse thesis....

a. that there are planets that operate via anti-gravity...things fall away from mass

b. that friction produces cold.

Would the ability to see more of the spectrum entice you to accept those premises?

Like I said, I don't know. The effects of a Wider Light Spectrum on the Brain and it's functions haven't been studied as that isn't even possible for a Man in his current state.

Also, the Laws of Physics were made by a Man here on THIS Earth in THIS Universe. Perhaps there is a Different set of Laws for other Universes that cannot be verified by the current Scientific Method?

I don't know but again, it's interesting to think about.

 

[Valerie]

poor PC