Since I'm procrastinating, I guess I should stop being the devil's advocate and attack my own multiverse model:
|
Quote:
|
|
An event A may lead to consequences (futures) which we here conveniently term A1, A2, A3, etc. We have to mention specifically that the frame of reference in this consideration is a particular person in universe U1, let's say it's ours. It's important in that the Multiverse theory proposes that different futures may stem from the same event in different universes (not too hard to get but when we look at the holistic view of multiversal occurrences, it produces a rather interesting effect for the existence of Deity). Also, Einstein's notion of simultaneity of time points will also be explored (meaning past, present and future occur simultaneously in spacetime coordinates!).
|
Problems: the fact that the universes meet at A alone indicates interaction so this model is already flawed to begin with. Also, the fact that A can develop in different directions has a serious implication: let's consider a simple case, a human at event A. What the model stated is that the human at A somehow "separates" and progresses into different future courses. I am not knowledgeable in metaphysical reality but this is way too weird. But of course, science fiction can inspire even weirder stuff. For now, I'm just a happy camper at the current and sensible physics cottage. Milk and biscuits, anyone?
|
Quote:
|
From A, one can proceed to the future A1 or A2 or A3, etc.
Omnipotence means God can influence anything along the way from A to any of the futures of A. Omniscience implies God knows exactly which future of A will be locked in, let's say A1 for our universe U1. Now combine the two, that God can influence anything along the way from A to A1, rendering a change in direction to, say A2. Since God knew that A1 would happen, he should not change the course because in doing so, that fact that he knew A1 would happen was false because what actually happens is A2. Arguing that he knows both A1 and A2 will happen is clearly nonsensical (You can't, for example, be on time and late for work at the same time). At this point, yes, omnipotence and omniscience aren't compatible.
Let's take a look at the multiverse U1, U2, U3, etc. The principle here is that the universes cannot interact with each other so I will design my multiverse in this way: each U1, U2, U3, etc. is a set of spacetime coordinates intersecting at the point A (much like a coordinate system with infinite axes - this is hypergeometry, don't bother trying to visualise it). Now have I met the requirement that the univserses don't interact with each other? I have. They intersect at event A and then proceed in their own planes. Each universe has its own set of A1, A2, A3... . Being omniscient, God surely knows which consequence of A in its respective universe will occur. Being omnipotent, God can change A -> A1 in U1 to A -> A1 in U2. Now the interesting effect is that the future event of A that God sees is identical! So by changing from path in U1 to the one in U2 makes absolutely no difference.
|
Problem: redundancy. In other words, two universes that possess the same energy state are just as unlikely to exist as they are likely to be happen. A good point to note is that, in quantum mechanics, there can be no two identical states in a given energy level (e.g. two electrons in the same orbital have to spin in opposite directions) so really the fact that two identical universes (read: same energy and structure) exist is somewhat redundant. Of course, the intrinsic dilemma with the Multiverse theory is that it can never be proved or disproved based on the principle that the universes cannot interact with one another (we here can't detect whatever from "other universes").
|
Quote:
|
The flaw in that design, yes, you may have spotted it already is that: given the extra information, we must specify at the beginning that God must have known that A -> A1 in U1 and not U2. So here's the thing that will play with your mind: each universe is a virtual reality, meaning that they can be identical so U1 and U2 are just the same constructs branching in different virtual dimensions but ultimately interchangeable.
Another flaw in the design is that what if God changes A -> A1 from A -> A2. Now it's obvious whether they're in the same universe or different universes will make a difference. Now for simplicity's sake, let's say it's A -> A1 in U1 changed to A -> A2 in U2 by God's omnipotence. God's omniscience tells God that one of them has to occur. However, it doesn't need to be that way. Remember these are two separate universes, meaning from one event A, A1 will occur in U1 and A2 will occur in U2. God sees both of these. So where's the change of future that I spoke of? It's the existence of both universes that is the change. What if the change happens in the same universe? It has been shown that it is nonsensical because in the same universe, only one outcome exists. The power to change anything relies heavily on the multiversal model. In essence, to speak of omnipotence and omniscience is to assess the multiversal model.
|
Problem: Remember the "frame of reference". Who is observing the "change of futures"? Certainly it has to be the human observer who resides in one of the universes and clearly, he/she cannot see any change in the other dimension, further implying that the support for compatibility of omnipotence and omniscience has fallen to pieces. Sure from the perspective of the deity, the "change" (misnomer, indeed, because clearly my model is all about "simultaneous and isolated occurrences in separate universes", if you look at it closely) is right there but well, remember omnipotence in religion refers to the deity's ability to change one event to another in the frame of the observer.
One can argue this point by theorising that in doing so, the deity is moving the reality from one dimension to another where the events are modified (U1 to U2, say). Again, that goes back to the primary argument: just refer back to what Vasu said about omnipotence and oniscience.
I have to admit this I almost convinced myself when I was thinking up this model. It's not unusual that one tends to be persuaded by his own product for deception, is it? lol
And the final point: I deliberately used "God" and "Deity" with no particular reference to "Jesus' or "Allah" or "Buddha" or whatever the religions might call here. And certainly I am not interested in biblical references such as Moses and Abraham or the Buddhist reference to Buddha himself. To me they're good fictions. If one of them is true, the rest aren't. Since all claim they're true and that the evidence we've observed so far all contradict the "truthfulness" (i.e. all teachings came from God) they aspire to inspire in the general public, I'd go back to worshipping the generic, omnipresent, everything-around-you, flow-of-life God. At least I don't need another person to tell me what he/she thinks God thinks.
Hybrid Mode
