Turtles, or 'branes'...? Please wait and read all the details before answering.?

Question

I've already asked similar q's under astronomy and space, but please bear w' me.

The 'brane' theory of multiple universes (if I understand it correctly) was developed to account for certain phenomena (ourselves) which according to probability, would take not only longer time to appear than the universe has existed, but longer than the universe is calculated to remain.

So the hypothesis is that there is a much larger universe than we have been aware of, and ours is only a tiny portion among many more which exist beside our own. In other words, if the universe it too small and ephemeral for us to have appeared by the working of random chance, assume a larger and longer lasting universe such that the probablility is assured.

This seems awfully like a question-begging argument, to me. It might satisfy the mathematics, but not our mannishness, the innate personal character of our beings.

Here is the analogy: An elderly lady once attended a lecture on cosmology.

Afterward, she told the lecturer that she didn't believe the Earth was floating in space.

"What do you believe?" he asked.

"It's resting on the back of a gigantic elephant!"

"But what is the elephant resting on...?"

"It's standing on the back of an enormous turtle...!"

"But, what is the turtle standing on ...?"

"On the back of an even larger turtle...!"

"And what is THAT turtle standing on...?"

"It's no use," she said with a smile. "It's turtles, all the way down...!"

If you can see the parallel between the foolish old woman and her turtles, and the 'brane' theory of multiple universes, can you understand why i am asking about it?

Is my analogy valid? Are noted scientists and thinkers postulating a universe 'as large as need be' as a philosophical escape hatch from the need to face the possibility that we are the creation of a superior being...?

I don't see the pressing need to hypothesize a plurality of universes other than to satisfy the prior assumption that we are the product of the inanimate, plus time, plus chance.

It still leaves us unsatisfied, without answers to the questions of whether there is any real difference between awareness and non-awareness, or between good and evil.

Do you think my question is unfair...? Am I wrongly characterizing the noted scholars and scientists who have come up with the theories of multiple universes and 'branes'...?

They seem just as stubborn and fallacious as the old woman!

Answer 1

An interesting and well posed question.

I've read more about multiple universe theory than most. There was a good article in Scientific American, and there continue to be on a regular basis. One article is given below by Max Tegmark, a prominent astrophysicist.

I can say nothing of the turtle theory.

Based on Tegmark's article, I am inclined to believe that the multiple universe hypothesis is based scientific and astronomic data rather than as a solution to probabilistic problems with natural origins of humanity.

I think the point is that given sufficiently large numbers of random events, complexity and improbable things are bound to occur. Even humans. I actually think that most astronomers, including Carl Sagan (who I saw on Cosmos last night on the science channel) would propose that it is well within the probability of rationality that there are other planets with intelligent life in THIS universe! In other words, I don't think most astronomers and scientists think that the multiple universe hypothesis is necessary for the probability of man's existence.

In addition, you seem to have questions about the origin of the universe itself.

Based on your passage about the turtle, I think you are pointing to logical ad infinitum problems with cause and effect. Most claim that "everything requires a beginning."

Moreover, most theists claim that a supernatural creator existing "outside of time and space" must exist in order to create the universe.

I feel this position is flawed for several reasons.

Why do theists get to create a "creator" that conveniently solves this problem of a "first cause"?

I will claim in turn that a natural process by which we do not currently understand was the "first cause." Why must the first cause be supernatural?

Theists claim, "there must be a first cause. Nature could not have created a first cause, and something cannot come from nothing." The problem that arises is this: If the universe requires a first cause, and God is the first cause, what created God? Posing God as a first cause doesn't solve the problem. It makes it more complex. And according to Occam, the simpler explanation is usually better! In other words, the fewest steps the better. If we require an origin of something from nothing, then it's simpler to claim the universe came from nothing OR that the universe has ALWAYS existed than God came from nothing, then made the universe - OR - God always existed, then created the universe.

In sum, I think that there one of two possibilities is correct:

1. The universe came from nothing.
2. The universe has always existed. (At least the matter IN the universe.)

Putting God in this is more complex than necessary.

----

Next, consider that EVEN IF you are correct that "something outside of time and space created the universe," this does not prove:

1. God is anthropomorphic.
2. God is sentient, has thoughts, and has feelings.
3. God "wanted" to create the universe.
4. The being that created the universe is indeed, the God of Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion.

At best, this line of logic could only lead you to Deism. This is the belief that "something" created the universe, but after that, it was a hands off policy.

At best, you could claim that there is a first cause that may or may not be an intelligent being, may or may not be anthropomorphic, may or may not have desires, and may or may not be the God of Christianity.

----

Finally, I will claim that ALL events that occur on this planet occur by natural means. Everything in science is based on observing NATURAL events. Thus, it seems absurd,

1. To use science and observation of natural phenomena to prove the existence of something supernatural.
2. To propose that numerous natural processes have supernatural origins.

If I saw unicorns, people spontaneously healing from sickness, dazzling light shows in the sky, ghosts, demons, and angels on a regular basis; I'd be inclined to believe in supernatural things.

Everything I can observe is natural EVEN that which is made by man, so I cannot conceive of supernatural things actually existing in anything other than my imagination.

----

I'm quite interested in this topic. For any further discussion:

[e-mail]

Answer 2

Not really very surprising....
The attempt is to bring the unlimited into the limited canvas !
Even the visualisation, when coupled with mathematical logic seems infinitely capable, but with just the sense organs, as inputs, there is a restriction imposed on the mind.
Yet the mind refuses to accept such imposed restrictions, and then turns to invent larger versions of stored memory versions... turtles ! Only, turtles seem funny, whereas incomprehensible theories of experts 'seem' credible... in many cases, they themselves had to deny their own theories in the absence of worthy criticism/evaluation ! They saw no point in winning over or defeating simpletons !
The problem is, these learned people are too busy with their minds, and set apart no time to explore parallely, a possibility to supplement their own perception skills, especially beyond sense organs ! Any living example around seems to them too incredible to 'fit' into their yardstick of measurement !
When the perception deepens, then the range of 'visibility' too extends incredibly ! This cannot be demonstrated for others to 'see' , but is purely experiential !
Yes , "the innate personal character" is the clue !

Answer 3

This is just like the theory of infinity. What your are asking cannot be proved or disproved. Your analogy is correct however at some point all things must come to end. In your theory there is no beginning or end. The brain if you are correct must be the advent of superior being. You are making an argument for the existence of God. Of coarse that is just one way to look at.

Answer 4

A most interesting question worthy of the greatest of minds! Unfortunately, I am not not one of those.

As a simple Sasquatch, I know in my heart, that we ARE the creation of a greater being, God if you will.

We have grown from a culture believing in Sea Monsters and Flat Earth to a society of learned peoples. (Okay, we still have a long way to go, but campared to our ancestors, we are brilliant), IMHO!

The Universe (by definition) encompasses all things which exist. Thus, things known or unknown are part of the Universe. They only wait for discovery.

IMHO,

(c) 2006 The Ol' Sasquatch Ü

Answer 5

you know, i've read your question/essay several times and i really am unsure as to what you are actually asking.

theories are theories and thats all there is. is your posted theory possible? sure... just like any other possible theory in its place.

Answer 6

I'm not dissatisfied. I know that God is holding us in space and is holding us together. He alone could tell us how far it goes, and in that, I am perfectly content. :)

Answer 7

turtles have shells and walk slowly