The 4-dimensional multiverse

a reply to: BrotherKinsMan

I just wanted to add...

".. aware of each dimension, then we must, as an observer, exist beyond.."

I thought about it years ago. Agree all the way. My remark would be.. the observer is our consciousness. It is in my opinion a next dimension.

In idea, one has to have a vintage point to observe. That vintage point must be a higher dimension..not in physical classical sense.

Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? (Awake!—2009)

...

In efforts to explain by natural processes alone the design and fine-tuning evident in the cosmos, still others turn to what has been called the multiverse, or many-universe, theory. According to this hypothesis, perhaps we live in just one of countless universes​—all of which have different conditions, but none of which have any purpose or design. Now according to that line of reasoning and the laws of probability, if you have enough universes, eventually one of them should have the right conditions to support life. However, there actually is no scientific evidence to support the multiverse theory. It is pure speculation.

After stating that he did not subscribe to that hypothesis, Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Christian de Duve said: “In my opinion, life and mind are such extraordinary manifestations of matter that they remain meaningful, however many universes unable to give rise to them exist or are possible. Diluting our universe with trillions of others in no way diminishes the significance of its unique properties, which I see as revealing clues to the ‘Ultimate Reality’ that lies behind them.”

Human Consciousness

The fact that we form theories for the existence of the cosmos is remarkable. In a universe without purpose, such an ability would have to be nothing but the result of a mindless process. Does that seem reasonable to you?

The human brain has been described as “the most marvelous and mysterious object in the whole universe.” No amount of knowledge in the fields of physics and chemistry can in itself produce adequate explanations for the human capacity for abstract thought and our widespread search for purpose in life.

Either the human mind, with its quest for understanding, was put in place by a superior intelligence, or it arose randomly. Which of these two possibilities seems more reasonable to you?

Another Explanation?

Science, indeed, has told us much about how the cosmos, the world, and living organisms work. For some people, the more science tells us, “the more improbable our existence seems.” Improbable, that is, if our being here were merely a product of evolution. However, to use the words of science writer John Horgan, “reality seems awfully designed and, in some ways, too good to be here through pure chance.” Physicist Freeman Dyson similarly commented: “The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.”

In view of the evidence​—complexity in nature, fine-tuning, apparent design, and human consciousness—​would it not be logical at least to consider the possibility of the existence of a Creator? A very good reason for doing so is that a Creator should be able to tell us how life appeared and whether life has a purpose​—questions that science is incapable of answering. [whereislogic: correction: human philosophy posing as "science"/knowledge. What is nowadays called science used to be called "natural philosophy". The english term "science" comes from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge", which is also still a synonym for "science". Also, until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science". English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833, for marketing reasons. The same reason people started using "science" instead of "knowledge" at a certain point, makes you sound smarter and more sophisticated when you use terms derived from Latin. As soon as so-called "modern science" was born in the 17th century, spectacular breakthroughs enveloped science in a halo of infallibility and authority, producing scientism, a religion in itself, a sacred cow. So-called "science" was new and exciting; religion seemed outdated and dull. This attitude toward religion was intensified by the Enlightenment, an intellectual movement that swept Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries. “Its ancestral roots,” says The New Encyclopædia Britannica, were found “in Greek philosophy.” “Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;” “We have much to say about him, and it is difficult to explain, because you have become dull in your hearing. For although by now* [Lit., “in view of the time.”] you should be teachers, you again need someone to teach you from the beginning the elementary things of the sacred pronouncements of God, and you have gone back to needing milk, not solid food. For everyone who continues to feed on milk is unacquainted with the word of righteousness, for he is a young child. But solid food belongs to mature people, to those who through use have their powers of discernment* [Or “their perceptive powers.”] trained to distinguish both right and wrong.” (Col 2:8; Hebrews 5:11-14)]

These questions are addressed by the writings called the Bible, or the Holy Scriptures, whose writers claimed to be inspired by the Creator. Why not consider what the Bible says on these matters?

...

[Blurb on page 8]

Is the human brain the result of a mindless process?

[Box/​Picture on page 6]

What Makes Science Possible?

Scientific research is possible because the physical world is orderly and because energy and matter behave in a predictable, uniform manner in a given set of circumstances. This order can be expressed in the fundamental laws of mathematics, physics, chemistry, and so on. Without such order, scientific work, technology, and life itself could simply not exist.

So the questions arise: What is the origin of physical laws? And why do they function as they do? Many believe that the most reasonable answer is a Supreme Intellect. What do you believe?

...

Did It Spring From Nothing?

The DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) molecules in each living cell contain elaborate, detailed instructions necessary for the correct development of organisms. Although DNA is much more complex, it could be compared to the digital information embedded on a DVD. When processed, the coded data on a DVD makes it possible for one to watch a video or listen to music. Similarly, DNA molecules, shaped like twisted rope ladders, carry encoded information that underpins all life and that makes living things differ​—bananas from beans, zebras from ants, humans from whales.

Hardly would anyone suggest that the digital information on a DVD could possibly be a product of spontaneous events. Is it reasonable to propose that the highly complex information in DNA sprang from nothing?

The so-perceived "wise" men of this world have found a way around though, with another contradiction (“Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called ‘knowledge.’[Latin: scientia] By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith.”—1Tim 6:20,21):

Playlist link (and so you can see the full title, context starts here though):

Psychology: Dawkins&Krauss selling the philosophy and contradiction that nothing is something

originally posted by: whereislogic

Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? (Awake!—2009)

...

In view of the evidence​—complexity in nature, fine-tuning, apparent design, and human consciousness—​would it not be logical at least to consider the possibility of the existence of a Creator? A very good reason for doing so is that a Creator should be able to tell us how life appeared and whether life has a purpose​—questions that science is incapable of answering.

These questions are addressed by the writings called the Bible, or the Holy Scriptures, whose writers claimed to be inspired by the Creator. Why not consider what the Bible says on these matters?

Next page:

Why Are We Here? (Awake!—2009)

And for those who have been tricked by philosophers posing (and self-marketing) as "scientists" (see footnote that I added earlier) to believe that how life appeared has been explained (or that we have at least a pretty good idea/philosophy how this happened by a "mindless process", to quote from the title of the article in my previous comment):

Full title and playlist link again:

James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained - Science Uprising Expert Interview

The next one in the playlist is also quite telling:

In 2008, Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz stated that over the last 50 years, “no empirical evidence supports the hypotheses of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth from nothing but a molecular soup, and no significant advance in scientific knowledge leads in this direction.” (How Life Began​—Evolution’s Three Geneses, by Alexandre Meinesz, translated by Daniel Simberloff, 2008, pp. 30-33, 45.)

It's all "hype", as James Tour puts it in the video above (referring to the impression marketed/promoted that we have at least a pretty good idea/philosophy how this* happened by a "mindless process", i.e. 'nature did it', or swap out "nature" with "the universe", as Freeman Dyson did as quoted in the article, the main causal factor in this idea being "by chance" or "by accident" as Richard Dawkins puts it; *: "this" = origin of life/"how life appeared").

Chapter 4: Could Life Originate by Chance? (Life—How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)

WHEN Charles Darwin advanced his theory of evolution he conceded that life may have been “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”⁠1 But present-day evolutionary theory generally eliminates any mention of a Creator. Instead, the theory of the spontaneous generation of life, once repudiated, has been revived in a somewhat altered form.

Belief in a form of spontaneous generation can be traced back for centuries. In the 17th century C.E., even respected men of science, including Francis Bacon and William Harvey, accepted the theory. However, by the 19th century Louis Pasteur and other scientists had seemingly dealt it a deathblow, having proved by experiments that life comes only from previous life. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen spontaneously from nonliving matter.

A New Form of Spontaneous Generation

A current evolutionary position on life’s starting point is summarized in his book, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. He speculates that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”​—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.⁠2

At this point a reader may begin to understand Dawkins’ comment in the preface to his book: “This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction.”⁠3 But readers on the subject will find that his approach is not unique. Most other books on evolution also skim over the staggering problem of explaining the emergence of life from nonliving matter. Thus Professor William Thorpe of the zoology department of Cambridge University told fellow scientists: “All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was.”⁠4

...

And nothing worth pointing out has changed since the book above was written (or Richard Dawkins' book for that matter). As James Tour will explain in more detail if you're willing to watch those videos. Professor of Biology Alexandre Meinesz already summed it up in 2008, and James Tour updates it with details why the statement made by Meinesz is still as valid and true/factual in 2024 as it was in 2008.

Of course, "how life appeared"/the origin of life has technically been explained, thousands of years ago already by the only reliable source of truth and true science/knowledge. By the One most people on this planet ignore when He's teaching you something "for your own good" (even many of those who claim to believe in the existence of God, and the Bible being His Word of truth, the instruction manual for mankind). Isaiah 48:17,18:

This is what Jehovah says, your Repurchaser, the Holy One of Israel:

“I, Jehovah, am your God,

The One teaching you to benefit yourself,* [Or “for your own good.”]

The One guiding you in the way you should walk.

18 If only you would pay attention to my commandments!

Then your peace would become just like a river

And your righteousness like the waves of the sea.

Sadly though, most people don't pay attention.

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

In case it wasn't clear, the point made by Kyle in the South Park video at the end (as also shown in the screencapture) also counts for this thread and leads in the subject of the motive of this whole multiverse idea/philosophy (myth/false story actually, see 2 Tim 4:3,4 quoted at the end above) as discussed in the article below the South Park video, which explains the reason for some of us, including me, why we are "sick of the stupid multiverse" (quoting Kyle again). It also leads to the rest of the subjects discussed in my 2 comments above. So in my opinion at least, it's all on-topic. At least this way, I don't have to talk too much about "the stupid multiverse".

But you (general you) can go ahead if you must (demonstrate the accuracy and reliability of 2Tim 4:3,4, Eph 4:14, Col 2:8, Heb 5:11-14, 1Tim 4:1,2, John 8:42-47, Matt 13:13-15, 2Tim 3:1-9,16,17, 1 Cor. 1:19-25, 1Tim 6:20,21, Rom 3:4 and many more such Bible texts).

Written Nonsense (1955)

Never before has so much been written that is nonsensical. In Roman times Paul told Christians not to act like the people of the nations, who “walk in the unprofitableness of their minds.” (Eph. 4:17, NW) Just how sadly unprofitable some of the writings of those minds must have been we can imagine from a discovery at Pompeii. It was the custom back then to write on the walls of buildings. Some shrewd reader and commentator of the writings of others had written on a wall in Pompeii the following in Latin: “It is a wonder, O wall, that thou hast not yet crumbled under the weight of so much written nonsense.”

“But Jehovah is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him.”—Hab. 2:20, AS.

“But Jehovah is in his holy temple.

Be silent before him, all the earth!”—Hab. 2:20, NW.

And normally I would post the video that I used at the end of my previous comment at this point. Which is a friendly, warm and well-meaning* message from Jehovah to all mankind, from Isaiah ch. 45. (*: "for your own good", Isaiah 48:17).