- Alex Naszados
- shared a link.
- Admin
- MIND MATTERS : WE DON’T LIVE IN A MULTIVERSE BECAUSE THE CONCEPT MAKES NO SENSE
https://mindmatters.ai/2021/02/we-dont-live-in-a-multiverse-because-the-concept-makes-no-sense/
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- The concept actually does make sense, since bishop Tempier condemned the thesis that God could not create multiple words.
- Rick DeLano
- Bishop Tempier has not the faintest idea of what the multiverse is, and neither, apparently, do you, Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Mil Sneler
- Hans-Georg Lundahl Why not?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- 1) I suppose that "multiverse" (modern sense) means that any given universe splits in two as soon as there is any actual binary choice, like one universe where I am now writing this and one where I didn't log in;
- 2) If God could handle any given number of universes, He could obviously handle this too.
I don't mean He would, I don't mean He does, but I do mean that while the concept is superbly superfluous, it is not something like circles not being round.
- Rick DeLano
- It also means that Jesus Christ did not go to the cross in an infinity of worlds.
It would have been better if you had remained ignorant,
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- It is certainly false, but it is not senseless. There is a distinction between the two, you know.
The sentence is also ambiguous - there are infinite worlds of which it is true that Christ did not go to the cross in each of them (and also an infinity where He did) and ours is not one of them OR for each world what happened in it determines what is true for all worlds, so "an infinity of worlds in which Christ did not go to the cross in our world" would be very definitely false.
- Rick DeLano
- Every word you typed above is both false, and senseless.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I do not see the point of this animosity. If it is supposed to be about orthodoxy, first of all, I don't think you have any kind of doctrinal decision that the multiverse is impossible to God. It might be said you could have one against it being fact, in the decisions against Giordano Bruno.
In fact, with God as creator, God can chose between all the different universes in the multiverse, which He prefers to give actual reality to, leaving some of the others to poets and thinkers and most of a complete infinity to non-actualisation.
Without God, a multiverse would be an answer about freedom, as opposed to determinism, but will not serve the atheists as they like. A multiverse will not allow big bang cosmogeny, will not allow abiogenesis, will not allow apes evolving into men (even if it were otherwise remotely possible) to invent language.
None of the worlds would string together a sequence of events in which chemicals gave rise to life or in which creatures descended from apes and inheriting their way of communication would, if human, invent language.
But with God, there is a possibility of someone making an active choice between possible universes as He creates one, and the multiverse becomes, if considered as actual, superfluous.
However, if considered as only potential, an infinity of unrealised universes, it is obliging to the infinite knowledge of God, since what there is to know about the actual universe we live in is finite.
Do you receive your sacraments on FSSPX precincts? I used to be FSSPX, but they have now both seemed too keen on compromising with Evolutionism here in Paris, putting YEC down to Kent Hovind, and been too eager to show off orthodoxy by hasty condemnations without considering what is being said, at least if I am to go by how they have dealt with my writings.
- Rick DeLano
- To conflate the potential with the actual is the very essence of the multiverse error.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- In the case of a Theist, there is a God to make a choice.
For an atheist, this is not so, and it would seem to be an error preferrable to determinism within the one universe.
- Rick DeLano
- It is so whether the atheist believes it or not.
It is an error to conflate the potential with the actual whether one [is] an atheist or not.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- However, as God can create as many worlds as He likes, we cannot consider an actual multiverse for instance a contradiction in terms, unless you mean it to include things a good God could not allow.
We can consider it in fact a non-fact, but it is not senseless.
- Rick DeLano
- It is both a non-fact (it is a falsehood), and it is senseless, in that it consists precisely in the conflation of the potential with the actual.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Error and senselessness are not the same.
This conflation has worse results when it conflates potential, actual AND necessary and therefore actual and necessary, in the more classic version of Atheism.
We are not likely to see any more centuries, but if we did, multiverse would be the kind of bag end from which Atheists might start to slowly recover.
Multiverse at least admits that things in this world are not necessary single results of factors going back to the beginning of time.
- Rick DeLano
- The multiverse is a senseless error.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- How do you distinguish that from saying "that the first cause cannot make many worlds"?
As this is sentence 34 condemned by Bishop Tempier of Paris (where we have only had Archbishops since 1622) on Laetare Sunday early 1277 (later 1276, as they divided years).
Think about it to tomorrow!
- Rick DeLano
- I have many more important things to think about than the senseless error of the multiverse.
- CW
- Rick DeLano Hans-Georg Lundahl I’m not a deep thinker and at all well versed in any of this. Sometimes I read quickly through a thread wishing I knew what certain terms meant.
I s add les us wish I could add something and I’ll add my commoner maintenance mechanic grease-monkey 2 cents: for me the idea of multiple universes would be impossible for God because it seems almost “deceptive”.
It would shake my Faith.
My understanding is that it isn’t just “life on other planets”, it’s a or some “whole other separate universes”. I know this isn’t based on any philosophical equation. Maybe too « emotional ».
Off topic...
Hans, have you always lived in France? I tried my vocation with the Dominicans of Avrillé, at La Haye aux Bonshommes in 1988/89. One of the best years of my life. J’aime la langue française. I learned and have kept with me soooo many great French Catholic hymns. The new recordings videos by the military chaplain group « Les Padres » are inspiring beyond comprehension. I hope they become as traditional as possible. Have you seen their videos ?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Multiverse is indeed something other than humanities starting elsewhere on the globe or life on other planets.
Let me break it down.
This specific item says "every time a binary choice is possible, the universe splits in two, one for each option". Schrödinger's cat died in one universe and survived in the other.
Not just an infinity of universes in which God did not walk to Calvary and another infinity in which He did, but even same amount to three times as frequent infinite universes in which Adam didn't sin in the first place.
I am not here to argue it could very well as far as we know be factual, I think indeed the best options are, it isn't. More like God overviews a purely potential multiverse and from an infinity of universes chose to create ours. But the idea does not come from the Christian side, but from atheists.
Here is the point : they are starting to see how immense certain odds are against such and such a thing just emerging by chance.
Their solution (or one of them, but the one we here discuss) : multiverse. We do not live in the likeliest universe or one of medium probability, we live in a highly unlikely one compared to most others.
Now, this is an error and it will also not help their strivings. However, would it be only an error, or would it be also senseless?
It's not senseless to say God created a heliocentric world and made it look geocentric, our opponents are saying that, even if that involves some degree of deception on God's part, and it is even not senseless to say He created a parallel universe which is in fact geocentric but looks heliocentric. We know from Urban VIII God could, and this does not apply to senseless propositions.
In claiming the error is senseless, one is actually claiming it is worse than the classical atheist error of one strictly predestined universe, and that one the only one and therefore the one we live in. It may involve senselessness as overall philosophy, since if the man thinking this is right, his thoughts are predestined by initial conditions at Big Bang, but the idea as such is wrong, it is not senseless, one proof that it has sense is, I can deduce from it "if it is true, it is unknowable".
The multiverse would also involve an "if it is true, it is unknowable" part, but as said that does not make it a senseless proposition. If it were, it would be false that God could make any number of universes, and proposition 34 of those condemned by Stephen Tempier would be true.
Also, it leaves some more freedom.
If our behaviour is strictly univocally predetermined by initial conditions at Big Bang, as atheists used to say, when Rick DeLano came across my material it was predetermined he would not use it but prefer leaving me in poverty, though I am arguably a better scholastic than he is.
But if every binary choice splits the universe in two, it's a curious and not a necessary fact that we live in the one where he didn't and in which I remained in poverty.
This means, the idea of a multiverse is if not compatible with Christianity as it originally stands (God would not allow certain universes, since these would be against His goodness and truthfulness), at least a sign of recovery, atheism is abandoning determinism. Or, this strand of atheism is.
What's their next move? Considering miracles? Becoming Christians?
CW "have you always lived in France?"
No, I am in France since 2005.
Note well, while I love the liturgy of Le Barroux, I left the idea of a monastic vocation behind in 2000. This means, the question of my livelihood is not superfluous and it is irksome that some are like cornering the market for geocentrism and pushing my writings out of it, on several false pretenses, like here pretending I am defending the supposely senseless error of multiverse.
Even if it were just a question of apologetics facing atheists, leaving me out, understanding an error (if multiverse is such) is a better position for arguing against it or against its supposed benefits for the main erroneous position over pretending to find it impossible to understand (as senseless actually means).
- Rick DeLano
- The multiverse is senseless- that is, it is impossible to understand- because there is no explanation (not even an attempt at an explanation) for how the universe splits itself off into copies every time a quantum system comes into contact with- what?
They cannot say what.
Or why coming into contact with what they do not specify splits the universe.
It is a senseless proposition.
Hans-Georg Lundahl. I am astonished to learn that you apparently harbor some sort of claim against me involving a deprivation of your rightful "place"; a "cornering of the market for geocentrism"; a "pushing of (your) writings out of it".
These accusations are so ridiculous, so unfounded, so unjust that they would amount to calumniation..
Except they are not sensible enough to rise to that level.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "there is no explanation (not even an attempt at an explanation) for how the universe splits itself off into copies every time a quantum system comes into contact with"
A binary choice.
"Or why coming into contact with what they do not specify splits the universe."
If they don't have any fair proposal, I as a Christian do, which is why it is not a senseless proposal.
These accusation are baseless?
I recall a time when you clearly didn't want any use for my insight on parallax being moot with geocentrism, and here is a record of it:
HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Internet Trouble and Pontifical Malfaisance, plus a Trap in Discussion
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/05/internet-trouble-and-pontifical.html
You believe parallax, you believe stellar sizes in main series correspond to the size of the sun, how many light years or thousands of light years away do you propose that heaven is?
Plus it leaves you with an unsolved Distant Starlight Problem, adding up to denial of Mark 10:6 and universe being created if not at same moment at least very little before the first married couple.
Plus it involves denying angelic movers that are Biblically as well as scholastically well motivated, and pretending this makes sense because scholastic philosophy is *a n o t h e r* field than natural science, rather than as is the fact actually back then and de jure to this day involving natural science.
Not a good start for someone who is making it his business to combat modern errors, and especially not if he's also (I think there was one token link on your blog magisterial fundies as exception) clearly not promoting when he could someone who was into geocentrism before him but who is less known.
By the way, chronology, I am into geocentrism since 24.VIII.2001, I think that is a bit earlier than you were, and it definitely is earlier than I recall Sungenis was, by two years or so, since I recall reading he is in the business since 2003.
Just before you ask what my qualifications are in scholastic philosophy and so, no, I don't pretend to have been to seminary, but I read a lot St. Thomas Aquinas back in the 90's. You are aware, back then there were Trads who were willing to promote St. Thomas Aquinas ...
By the way, I also involved an allegation about FSSPX (and sorry if you do not adher to them, in that case it was a mix up bc of Fatima Center or something), and to people reading French there is now a little documentation on how things went when people so friendly when giving 2, 5, 10, 20, at some Easters 50 € were suddenly very much less enthusiastic when it came to helping me to actually live of my trade of writing in a more stable and dignified manner:
Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl : À SSPX News
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2020/01/a-sspx-news.html
There was another post with my interactions with the claimed King of Araucania which disappeared ... HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS rather than Correspondence de / of / van Hans Georg Lundahl, I'd say.*
- Rick DeLano
- So.
Having lied that I persecuted you, you substitute evidence that I disagreed with you.
As to the second charge, I enthusiastically plead guilty.
Since you- what astonishing dishonesty!- reiterate the first, I bid you farewell.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- There is a disagreement for the sake of devalorising. Making that point is not dishonest.
Oh, if you think Heaven is more than 2.5 mega light years away, take care God doesn't send you there instead of one light day up!
* Two exchanges are missing : one with BTL where he directed me to the King of Araucania (a title going back to Orélie Antoine de Tounens, who actually helped Indians fight the post-colonial Spaniards trying to wipe them out, unlike the present one), and one with that person himself. SAR le Prince Stanislas d'Araucanie et de Patagonie. Either I put both on a single post on this blog or one with BTL, possibly on correspondence blog and one with Prince Stanislas. No, I did not myself take them away. Hacked, I think, since, if blogger had removed after abuse rport, I would have been notified.
