There are now some new theories that claim there is more than one universe; maybe even a universe of universes?
If scientific proof of additional universes can be made, will this have any relevance to philosophy, religions, laws of physics, space and time travel, the making of Gigli: Part II?
Does this also now make the word “universal” less, well - universal?
This theories are by no means new. They show up in for example the first pop-cosmology books published in the 1980’s. I guess it’s just taken a while for the mass media to become enamoured with them.
UnuMondo
I think his (or her) question was aimed more at the implications if such a theory were proven, not how new the theory was.
Unga Bunga
For better information on this subject - better than an MSNBC article would provide, anyway - Scientific American has a great article about this on their website.
Note that the article makes a distinction between four classes of possible parallel universes… Level 1 seems to be very widely accepted, as it simply postulates that other Big Bangs (creating other “Hubble Volumes”) have happened elsewhere. The other three Levels seem very Star Trek-ish, though the article does mention that the existence of a Level 3 parallel universe would explain some seemingly unexplainable aspects of quantum physics (deterioration of wave forms and such).
As for implications… well, a Level 1 parallel universe wouldn’t throw too much into confusion, as it simply states “there’s other stuff, very far away”. A Level 4 parallel universe, however, would be VERY interesting, as it would imply that “universal” laws are not so absolute.
A parallel universes theory would completely negate the need for religion as it would successfully respond to the intelligent design argument.
The intelligent design argument is that the cosmological constant (and a variety of other critical variables) are tuned in just such a way as to ensure the stability of the universe. Any slight deviation would result in a universe that contracted right back from the Big Bang, or expand very quickly, or do something else inconductive to life. So the universe must have been intelligently designed.
The parallel universes theory would respond as follows: You have an infinitude of universes, most of them amount to shit, but the odd one happens to have conditions conducive to biogenesis, which is why we originate and start wondering about our origins.
Make sense to me!
Thank you.
That certainly is a better source of information.
If we accept that to be true though, then the practical implications – even outside of religion – are tremendous.
If a poker player draws ten royal flushes in a row, then he can no longer be accused of cheating. He could simply claim that there are an infinite number of parallel universes, and that he happened to reside in the one which he had such incredible luck. Ditto for the person who buys the winning SuperLotto ticket for ten months straight.
In other words, if we postulate a vast multitude of universe to explain away improbable events in nature, then we cannot comfortably complain when such improbable events occur at the hands of human beings. Not if we want to remain consistent, that is.
As things stand, you can’t convict him of cheating merely because he appears very lucky. You can suspect him of cheating – which is natural, because in the vast proportion of the multiverses in which a guy draws ten royal flushes in a row, those guys are all obviously cheating – but suspicion is not quite enough to convict.
Per the casino’s rules, you may be entitled to frisk him, or you may use the hidden cameras to search around the room for accomplices, but if you find nothing, what then? If your suspicions don’t pan out, what then? Maybe he is just gosh-darn lucky. It happens, you know. The probability of drawing a royal flush being 1 in 649,740, which is roughly 1.5 x 10^-6, the probability of ten royal flushes in a row turns out to be 5.77 x 10^-59, which is clearly a nonzero probability. In a decent number of universes (there are an infinitude of them, remember) the man is just gosh-darn lucky. In fact, there are an infinite number of universes in which the man is gosh-darn lucky, because you get aleph-zero cardinality when you divide an aleph-zero cardinality by a humongous number of cardinality one.
Ah, but one can’t legitimately accuse him of cheating… not if one wants to maintain consistency. You can suspect all you want, but such suspicions would no longer have any basis to them.
Again: If you use the multiple universe theory to explain away improbable evolutionary events, then consistency dictates that we should also explain away unlikely events in gambling and other personal deeds. Otherwise, one would be guilty of hypocrisy, and we don’t want that, do we?
Ah, but one can’t legitimately accuse him of cheating… not if one wants to maintain consistency. You can suspect all you want, but such suspicions would no longer have any basis to them.
Again: If you use the multiple universe theory to explain away improbable evolutionary events, then consistency dictates that we should also explain away unlikely events in gambling and other personal deeds. Otherwise, one would be guilty of hypocrisy, and we don’t want that, do we?
Thanks for starting this, DMark - I think it forms a nice follow-up to my introduction to cosmology thread.
The third list in that OP corresponds to Level 1 in the SciAm article, in that other lines are attached to the timeless singularity as well as our own “time”. (I much prefer this description to “other Big Bangs happening” since I find it incredibly misleading to think of the Big Bang as an event rather than a place).
Evolution is concerned with biological speciation and to what extent those species are adapted to their environment. Cosmology is not within its scope.
Science involves seeking the most reasonable explanation given the data. Considering the possibility of subterfuge does not conflict with a scientific approach, and nor does accepting that just as there are reasons why Earth is the only known location for life in the universe, so there may be reasons why this universe is the only known life-yielding one in the multiverse.
However, as both my thread, the MSBC and the SciAm article point out, the multiverse might not be “scientific” because it might not be testable.
Many-worlds theory has been around since the 1950’s so it’s pretty old hat. It attempts to adress many of the problems associated with the quantum theory of measurement, but it has failed to displace the Copenhagen interpretation as the convential quantum theory of measurment it creates it’s own problems.
One of my favorite series of Fantasy books gets its premise from this very subject. The Cronicles of Amber by Roger Zelazny.
That was back in the early 70’s. Not sure I remember any books about Multiple world stuff much before that time. There might be though. I like to consider myself well versed in the Science Fiction Genre but I tend to avoid the really old stuff. 
If there are an infinite number of universes, it would mean that everyone, including you, would have an infinite number of lives that repeat over and over again like on the movie Groundhog Day. Universes would constantly be created in which the conditions are exactly the same as this one and you would be born, grow old, and die exactly the same way that you do in this universe. However, there would be other universes in which conditions remain the same until you are created and then branch off into alternate possibilities. The possible paths for your life would be infinite and you would live all of them. Some would be terrific and others would be hellish.
I would find infinite universes quite depressing. Why should I get excited when, in one day, I saved the dolphins, whales, rain forests, AND was elected president. In some other universe I did all of that, and, in additition, solved the problem of world hunger. Not only would I have done that, but in other universes, EVERYONE else (and their pet monkey) has, too. Here in this universe I get excited about going to a Radiohead concert this weekend. But why? It pales in comparison to the other universe where I’m playing as their guest artist.
Does this mean that in another universe there is another me with a Goat-tee?
That’s not true. One is entitled to suspect something if it happens in the vast majority of multiverses i.e. has a high probability of happening, or being true. Whether it happens in a particular multiverse, however, is not a foregone conclusion and is subject to verification.
I have no idea what you mean by accusing. If by accusing, you mean suspecting, then sure, you’re entitled to suspect high-probability events of being true. However, you still need to verify. If by accusing, you mean convicting, then no, you can’t convict without evidence. Even unlikely events happen sometimes.
There is no contradiction here at all, except any contradiction you create in your own mind by way of equivocation on the word “accuse”.
In which case, your claim that “A parallel universes theory would completely negate the need for religion as it would successfully respond to the intelligent design argument” is false. It would only be successful response to intelligent design if one already had prior knowledge of what happened in those other universes… which you don’t.
You can’t have it both ways, trans. You can’t dismiss the improbable nature of natural events using the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, yet abandon this standard when it comes to human events. Such a double standard amounts to cherry-picking – picking and choosing when to fall back on the multiple universe idea whenever an improbable event occurs.
Transistionailty, you’ve actually just touched on a key flaw on the many-worlds theory, each ‘universe’ does not have an equal probabilty attached to it, which is very diificult to explain within the context of the theory.
I have no idea what you mean. The intelligent design argument bases itself on the contention that the cosmological constant could not have come about by any way other than that of intelligent design. The multiverse theory proposes another way in which this could have come about, therefore defeats the intelligent design argument.
There’s nothing being abandoned or double-standardized. What exactly is being abandoned or double-standardized?