my car and computer are uniformatarian, but when i drive and type i don’t think they are doing it to themselves, but tgere is intervention from outside the system
the fact our uniformatarian reality is very non uniform indicates a lot of external jostling
In what way is reality nonuniform?
One of @Klax’s recurring errors is that he assumes that because something is rational that it is therefore true. One little counterexample should suffice… It is rational to think that there might be the hulk of a shipwreck at latitude x and longitude y (as long as they are in an ocean or large enough lake, of course). That does not mean that it is true.
No, this is not the basis of the multiverse idea. The idea that the physical constants could be different is a completely separate idea.
The basis of the multiverse idea is that events are not determined by the pre-existing conditions but can play out in more than one way. This is a fact from quantum physics. Laplace’s demon was based on the physics before the 20th century. We even have Everett’s many worlds interpretation of QM that there is no wave collapse but a superposition of universes where all different sort of things happened. Since some of the physical constants could be result of symmetry breaking events which could also have gone in more than one way then universes with different physical constants would be included also.
We don’t know that. We can only say that OUR sort of life is impossible in such a universe – and I wouldn’t even be so sure of that claim either.
for one thing, my slovenly post pandemic appearance
Don’t drive and type!
Okay. I think that’s the short answer to one of my questions in the OP. Thanks for the reply!
Interesting. This wasn’t anything similar to what I thought the multiverse was, but it explained the science fiction pretty well. (Thanks for the short history of it, by the way.) Anyway, it sent me out to read a bit more, and I found a fairly good piece for scientific laity on Forbes, of all places. I thought it was pretty balanced:
(The multiverse is) based on two independent, well-established, and widely-accepted aspects of theoretical physics: the quantum nature of everything and the properties of cosmic inflation. There’s no known way to measure it, just as there’s no way to measure the unobservable part of our Universe. But the two theories that underlie it, inflation and quantum physics, have been demonstrated to be valid. If they’re right, then the multiverse is an inescapable consequence of that, and we’re living in it.
So what? That’s not a whole lot, is it? There are plenty of theoretical consequences that are inevitable, but that we cannot know about for certain because we can’t test them. The multiverse is one in a long line of those.
Wishful thinking is no substitute for data, experiments, or observables. Until we have those, be aware that the multiverse is a consequence of the best science we have available today, but it doesn’t make any scientific predictions we can put to the test.
I realized I was wrong almost as soon as I posted, but I was too lazy to come back and fix it. Set theory and various infinities exceed my maths. Point conceded.
Thanks for the kind word. Just don’t take a vote on it. 
One reason I liked the article above is that it split the difference between you and @heddle. The multiverse may be an inescapable consequence of our present physics, but without data it will forever be speculation. Parsimony counts, but not everyone has the same definition of “common sense.” haha
Yes, I get that now.
I think that’s a fair summary.
Sorry to double up, but I forgot to link an article that addressed the “brane” you mentioned here. (I also had to give props for agreeing with me that the idea is moot!) I previously didn’t realize that there were multiple (five!) concepts of the multiverse. I would run a poll asking which one folks thought was most likely, but the results themselves would be moot.
5 Reasons We May Live in a Multiverse
Okay, I’m out of line now, but before @EricMH goes off on the multiverse, I can’t help but noting that the lack of observable data and predictable results applies equally to Intelligent Design. Does either qualify as science?
With a multiverse we’re speculating about the natural world, albeit beyond the limits of any chance of confirmation. With ID the speculation concerns something beyond the natural world altogether which is to be inferred from our inability to imagine a natural alternative. I don’t find them to be very similar at all.
i think you missed my otger discussions on this topic, i.e. gmos
you can rig a quantum coin flipper to flip a fair coin 1000 times and kill you if a tail ever occurs
the odds of you surviving are infinitesimal, but if multiverse theory is right, there is at least one universe where you survive
so, if at the end of the experiment you are still alive, then you know the multiverse is correct with very high probability
this is a pretty easy test to run, any takers?
The multiverse is a rational certainty and so is your infinitesimal insignificance. Universes never repeat. Let alone Earths and you. Common sense isn’t it?
And no, reality doesn’t bifurcate at every quantum collapse. Common sense isn’t it?
And no, the Block Universe of the B-Theory of Time…
And no…
… Common sense isn’t it?
I am going to start with the first post in this thread that mentions the multiverse in the context of science fiction and take my comment in a different direction. While I find no real value in Multiverse theory, I also find no real challenge to the Bible should there be another universe out there. The most popular Christian fiction series of all times is based on parallel universes - The Chronicles of Narnia! So …
I made use of at least the idea of a parallel universe to create a science fiction story where aliens from another universe who experience FOUR spatial dimensions enter our universe without loosing their 4D awareness. They proceed to interact with humans in ways that mimic angels, ancestors, departed saints, and spirit guides. The story thus becomes a sci fi parable of spiritual warfare. The Mulapin Trilogy!
Book 1 is Shadows of the End
the entire bible is based on the premise of a parallel spiritual universe that interacts with our physical universe
True. For an extremely brief, small and geocentric value of universe.
That’s kind of where I went with the story - but using aliens as a proxy for real angels/demons.
perhaps not such a huge difference
this is a common misubderstanding
the bible is actually heaven centric
the closer to the center of the earth we get the worse things are, that’s why satan gets thrown into the abyss
it is based on an older cosmology where good fire goes up and bad earth goes down
Riiiiiiggght. If you say so. What do humans have to do with it in the OT?
Not in their goals, but in the fact that neither can be proven from observable data and neither makes any predictions that can be tested. Aren’t both of those necessary for a theory to be “scientific”?
I saw them, but I didn’t read them. Aren’t you attempting to use information theory to demonstrate design? Even if you succeeded beyond your wildest dreams, it seems to me you’re in the same position as the multiverse. What good is a purely mathematical “proof” that makes no useful scientific predictions?
Very cool. I had no idea you wrote fiction. Love the premise!
Not really. A “parallel universe” isn’t a concept that would’ve occurred to the authors. Their view was simply that reality (if I may call it that) was comprised of the seen (physical) and the unseen (spiritual) – two sides of the same coin. I think Gregg’s idea of another dimension within our universe is closer in spirit (pun intended) to the biblical picture.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.