I love George Ellis. He co-wrote a book years and years ago called On the Moral Nature of the Universe that was such an eye-opening work for me. He makes a very compelling case that the physical universe is anchored (or inter-locked, if you will) in an objective, abstract morality; Platonic, in a sense. It was a brilliant work.
This short doesn't capture Ellis' (perhaps the leading cosmologist alive), view on the possibility of a multiverse, but drifts off into speculation of closed space. What can easily be missed is that Ellis points to a consequentialist argument by physicists (Barrow and Tipler) to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe for life. He does say there is no evidence nor can there be for a multiverse. Further he holds such a strong view that the multiverse is not backed by evidence that at a conference in his home town of Johannesburg he supported William Lane Craig's presentation on the fine tuning points to a personal creator.
However, the multiverse does not eliminate the need for an ultimate transcendent cause of all that exists. All multiverse theory does is kick the proverbial can further down the metaphysical road; it does not remove the unavoidable conclusion of an ontologically necessary Creator as the fundamental reality of everything -- everything including the multiverse (if indeed there is such a thing).
Ellis Part 1 Ellis on Multiverse The following quotes are taken from an article Ellis wrote entitled: Editorial note to “Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology” George Ellis, University of Cape Town May 28, 2018 Finally, the physical existence or not of multiverse is basically untestable [25], but is an essential component in the explanatory use of the SAP; so it is not clear if this can truly be regarded as a scientific theory, rather than a philosophical principle. (p. 6)
Is it possible that some day we could develop a way to learn beyond the universe that might be as good or even better than science and physics? Perhaps using information processing through computers and simulations will allow us to learn about things now beyond our reach.
With galaxies and universe flat, is there a way to measure or find what is above and below the universe, perhaps dark energy? Might even be small universes perpendicular to ours at the farthest reaches of universe.
No Multiverse!!! ... SO WHAT!!! ... I'm not throwing out my text books and cracking open the Bible! Is there a creator? Yea, he's the guy in the white lab coat!
These guys are just like religious leaders who have to lie in order to keep the jobs. They have no idea what the Voice of God is or how it produces life experiences for each created character.
I love George Ellis. He co-wrote a book years and years ago called On the Moral Nature of the Universe that was such an eye-opening work for me. He makes a very compelling case that the physical universe is anchored (or inter-locked, if you will) in an objective, abstract morality; Platonic, in a sense. It was a brilliant work.
This short doesn't capture Ellis' (perhaps the leading cosmologist alive), view on the possibility of a multiverse, but drifts off into speculation of closed space. What can easily be missed is that Ellis points to a consequentialist argument by physicists (Barrow and Tipler) to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe for life. He does say there is no evidence nor can there be for a multiverse. Further he holds such a strong view that the multiverse is not backed by evidence that at a conference in his home town of Johannesburg he supported William Lane Craig's presentation on the fine tuning points to a personal creator.
Thanks to all scientists! Forever grateful.
This man is awesome
Carr said the multiverse theory is cosmology's dirty little secret (to resist a divine foot in the door).
Sounds about right.
Nothing divine about it. IT feels divine to the mind. But Human is not the mind, Human's true nature is divine/consciousness.
However, the multiverse does not eliminate the need for an ultimate transcendent cause of all that exists. All multiverse theory does is kick the proverbial can further down the metaphysical road; it does not remove the unavoidable conclusion of an ontologically necessary Creator as the fundamental reality of everything -- everything including the multiverse (if indeed there is such a thing).
Ellis Part 1
Ellis on Multiverse
The following quotes are taken from an article Ellis wrote entitled:
Editorial note to “Large number coincidences and the anthropic principle in cosmology”
George Ellis, University of Cape Town May 28, 2018
Finally, the physical existence or not of multiverse is basically untestable [25], but is an essential component in the explanatory use of the SAP; so it is not clear if this can truly be regarded as a scientific theory, rather than a philosophical principle. (p. 6)
Good science can stand up to scrutiny by itself, empirically. Bad science needs cheerleaders.
Could fine tuning happen under Copernican principle, as life on earth is not the center of solar system or galaxy?
Would quantum mechanics or time be able in principle to measure multiple universes, or at least outside universe?
Would many universes be similar as many galaxies are similar?
"The Number of the Beast" - Robert Heinlein
Does inflation exist outside and in between universes?
Indeed, does it exist anywhere at all?
Nothing travels faster than the speed of light may not be true everywhere. That is our current limitation.
What's your evidence for that assertion?
Imagination can bring me anywhere in no time. My dream machine has no such limitations.
Perhaps not if you take quantum entanglement into account.
Is it possible that some day we could develop a way to learn beyond the universe that might be as good or even better than science and physics? Perhaps using information processing through computers and simulations will allow us to learn about things now beyond our reach.
Yep. Also The Marvel Universe. Multiple
billion's of Universes there are as most scientist now claim
With galaxies and universe flat, is there a way to measure or find what is above and below the universe, perhaps dark energy? Might even be small universes perpendicular to ours at the farthest reaches of universe.
No Multiverse!!! ... SO WHAT!!! ... I'm not throwing out my text books and cracking open the Bible!
Is there a creator? Yea, he's the guy in the white lab coat!
you can do both(like Dr Ellis does)
You worship guys in white lab coats? Alas, you are guilty of the illogical, idolatrous creed of scientism -- not science.
These guys are just like religious leaders who have to lie in order to keep the jobs. They have no idea what the Voice of God is or how it produces life experiences for each created character.
orbitaldildo
That's a bird that you can observe in the lakes around Minnesota.
orbitaldildo
That would be fun.
If there is a God?
I would argue that most scientists are bound by the biases of whomever is funding them....don't kid yourself and lock theists in that category alone
Hayden Van Zanten
Of course they are. Scientists don't know anything more than religious people do about how we're created.