explicitClick to confirm you are 18+

bolivia

censorship anyone still left?Mar 13, 2019, 10:21:37 PM
thumb_upthumb_downmore_vert

“Are you sure you want to jump in?” “The hole is quite deep and once in you might not be able to get out.” Being a stubborn new Bookworm whose ideology was always up for a new adventure I said “I was ready.” Like that I was pushed into the possibility of a different better world which was and now wasn’t and would not be remembered by that generation after me because so few people read.

The first story I was given was Forrest Gump. I had watched the movie several times the movie inspiring me to think and do more than I should and always be kind and nice. I was quite taken back when the reality I was in fell right into the rabbit hole. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109830/quotes THE quote was changed - Forrest Gump: My momma always said, “Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.” THAT was wrong I looked for an explanation. I searched and then got out my old VCR and watched the movie - magically it had changed there too. The magic seemed to affect all printed, electrical material, and movies. I asked a person whom I knew watched the movie with me and she said the quote as it is now. Forrest Gump: My momma always said, “Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.” BUT I asked should it not say Forrest Gump: My momma always said, “Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.” She said and I quote “oh that makes the whole movie more interesting went about her business as if what I had said never occurred. The rabbit hole entering is a dangerous one. Be ware be careful whom you share this information with. FOR I have found that the world has changed dramatically since I have left the service of the Bookworms. The magic is evil in that it is steal hope and replacing simple advertisement charm and wit with boring and not so good quotes for a purpose. To what purpose. Just thinking about the person I was talking to - to make her less interesting and more mean. The second story after finding myself afraid and not sure what to say or whom to ask. I was given a company’s name. JCPenny story. I knew them. They were an occult store that hired supposedly only virgins for some reason. JC Penny you know you have shopped there right? To my wildest dreams who every changed the name magically added an E... Why an E? JC Penney. What in the world? How can this be. I looked online and everywhere. The new spelling along with the old spelling was there. Evidently the old spelling still had not been magically erased on eBay. And there I noticed the B in Bay was now a b. What in the world. At least I could find JC Penny spelled right in obituaries and old static print newspapers and microfiche. This was to much I called the Bookworm society. There was no answer. I began to panic. I called my mom. She remembers JCPenny too. Thank the Lord of Light. I tried the Bookworm society again but to no avail. Third for what ever reason my adventure spell or lesson gave me the movie Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.. “Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?”. That was what I was expecting but what the magic spell creates was -

Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)

[first lines]

Queen: Slave in the magic mirror, come from the farthest space, through wind and darkness I summon thee. Speak! Let me see thy face.

Magic Mirror: What wouldst thou know, my Queen?

Queen: Magic mirror on the wall, who is the fairest one of all?

Magic Mirror: Famed is thy beauty, Majesty. But hold, a lovely maid I see. Rags cannot hide her gentle grace. Alas, she is more fair than thee.

Queen: Alas for her! Reveal her name.

Magic Mirror: Lips red as the rose. Hair black as ebony. Skin white as snow.

Queen: Snow White! I was faint. And realized I knew the source of this evilness even if my fellow Bookworms would not come forth or answer their phone. Being a watcher what does a person do? What should a person do? I spoke to my spell again and another disturbing sign appeared. Once I knew and one I thought must have been the pre advertisement sign. Chevron Blue and Red. The other Chevron Red and Blue. My realization of the change was looking at all Chevrons now which show a Red and Blue sign. That can not be. What type of magically spell is there to do this to me and the whole world. I asked a person I knew who worked at Chevron about the change. They looked blankly at me. Myself I was at this point not sure where to begin. So I went shopping with my wife. The adventure spell was working - I know I owned Fruit Loop cereal and how to spell Fruit from that silly TouCan bird. But there in Fruit spelling area was FROOT. I rushed home to see what the h e double hockey pucks had happened thinking maybe there was new advertisement or something. BUT no the magic spell had turned all the boxes and advertisements on line to FROOT instead of Fruit. Madness says I being a partial pirate this sounds like my math observation when in high school when I noticed there could be more than 180 degrees in triangle everyone laughed at me but I have learned differently since then. You see and this is a magical statement, and you must realize this anything you can imagine could happen whether good or bad evil or brave, wild or crazy when a parallel universe is opened up such as CERN has opened up her in this day and age. Looking for a safe place to survive this dooms day prediction, which should take from 1999 to 70 years outside it or 2027 when they announce being contacted by aliens, I started my search for safety only to discover all my maps and globes have been messed with along with old maps. The only once, I could find, which knew were right were handed drawn by myself during a search for lost items of the Bookworm society. The five most notable are as follows: When did New Zealand split into two islands? On my map when looking for a bird that was thought extinct but a muscled forearm was found in 1890 and preserved some how in a cave I had drawn the whole island as one island. The detail was quite good and now everything was different. Two Japan some how moved up north and over east by 140 miles putting it like right off the coast of North Korea. I was thinking of all the missiles fired from there and would have landed on the Japanese. What or where the magic spell this powerful came from. I knew the source but that tale is forbidden. No one should have used the idol but no one was picking up at the Bookworm society either. Voodoo of Haiti wild to think a stone idol could do this. Again that is another story. Three when did the Statue of Liberty move from Ellis island and instead of pointing towards New York and being part New York and New Jersey becomes part of New Jersey only and move to Liberty Island. That and since when did a bridge exist between New York and Ellis island. The magic spell must be running amok. Someone must not know what they have, or they like switching islands and randomly placing historical landmarks on different locations and such. Fourth when on earth, studying the seven seas and four oceans did we get the Southern ocean? I do not recall a southerly ocean did you? I must have been asleep, and my maps that I have hand drawn must be wrong. The fifth is sort of wild but more weird in some newer maps Saudi Arabia is splitting off Asia Minor. I have seen some this way and others not. The real question is it truth? That was what the Bookworm society was suppose to protect and at the moment. NOW world your imagination is free but evil so beware what you dream and what you wish for. For when books, videos, and history can be changed along with who dies and lives for I have at present seen a few people i know have died or at least thought or recall reading about their death now show back up. I wonder. TO ME BOOkWORMS where are you? Whatever evil has befallen you remember for goodness sake. The Lion shall lie down with the lamb. NOT the Wolf shall lie down with the lamb.

a major question to ask - if reptiles are going to destroy humanity in 10000 years by outbreeding humans and hybrids are humans what to do?

Do you let this happen?

Do you warn people and how?

Who cares?

Where is humanities defenders? There is questions but no answers at present.

Rights and Duties: For each moral right there is a corresponding moral duty.

• Negative rights create corresponding duties in all other moral agents.

Moral agent myself - decision to warn the world of human exstiction in 10,000 years by a reptile race.

• Positive rights create corresponding duties in specific individuals. Being given information that has been null proven can one act against a hybrid race?

• Special rights create corresponding duties in individuals identified by examining the

actions or relationships that create the right. Finding out that deities are a myth and we are at war whether we like it or not with reptiles what do you do?

Possession Criteria:

• For each moral right there is a “checklist” of characteristics an individual must have in order

to possess that right. The items on this list are the possession criteria for that right. An

individual has a moral right only if it meets these criteria.

• Possession criteria must be morally relevant to the nature and content of the right. Knowledge of something that is not right in this world

o Possession criteria for natural rights are always natural characteristics of the

individual (e.g., rationality, sentience). What does one do with knowledge others are missing?

o Possession criteria for special rights always have to do with actions or relationships

(e.g., parent-child relationship, act of making a promise). Speculation if life is not what you expect do you have a right to destroy what is currently there to challenge a unknown future?

o Possession criteria for negative rights are generally factors that enable one to be

autonomous (i.e., self-governing); e.g., rationality, experience of the world.

Having traveled parallel universes what have I learned.

No God

There appears to be reptiles

They seem to have a long term plan for extiction of humanity 10,000 years.

No one currently is working on humanities behalf.

o Possession criteria for positive rights are generally one’s vulnerability to harm.

Harm is 10000 years in the future

Current hybrid reptile humans have rights

what to do with a group of non humans?

The Right to Life: This right does not fit cleanly into any of the above categories. It would be

better to describe this as a set of related moral rights.

They desire to live - ie reptile humans

They win in 10000 years if we do nothing now

Is humanity worth anything?

Human Rights: There does not seem to be any way of establishing suitable possession criteria

for human rights. It would be irrelevant and unjust to use a biological category (e.g., being

human), and other characteristics (e.g., being rational) do not apply to all and only human beings.

Thus, it seems that there are no genuinely human rights.

Rights in Conflict:

• A moral issue cannot be settled by pointing out just one of the rights involved. Rights

conflict with one another, and we must determine which rights override which other ones.

• Immunity rights often override liberty rights, although there are exceptions (e.g., harming

another in self-defense).

• Each moral right is either absolute or defeasible:

• Absolute: Automatically overrides any other right with which it conflicts.

• Defeasible: May be overridden by other moral rights.

• An action that conflicts with a moral right is not automatically morally impermissible. It

could be that the right with which it conflicts is overridden in this situation by some other

right.

• Violating a right: An action violates a right when it conflicts with that right and that

right has not been overridden by other rights in that situation. Such actions are

morally impermissible.

• Infringing upon a right: An action infringes upon a right when it conflicts with a right

and that right has been overridden by other rights in that situation. Such actions are

morally permissible.

Questions to Ask about Moral Rights:

1. Which rights are there?

2. Who has the corresponding duties?

3. How should we resolve conflicts among rights?

4. Do rights admit of degree?

5. What are the possession criteria for each right?

On May 19th I believed in a deity. Christ, jewish ideology, etc.

On May 20th 2016 I awoke in the multiverse.

For the past few months I have asked whether there is a deity in charge and is there one or many.

My answers are as follows.

Per Rabbi there can only be one universe and if a multiverse only one extra universe. I asked why. there can only be one deity.

Per Christianity the multiverse goes against their belief that there is only one deity.

Since they did not read my story, nor cared to help me let me assure you there is more than one universe.

That there is a deity who has higher power but not a deity that I was raised to believe in.

What does that mean. It means I spent money, and time wasted on a religion that is man made and deceives their followers.

It means that we are all only responsible for our own actions. There is no deity forcing you to be evil or good. If you are good great if you are evil you are just an asshole.

Hi Clint,

I did not read the entire rambling post, as you said. I can’t read rambling. What I got is that you feel as if you are living in different universes, where things are different from one day to the next, and you want to know if this has any basis in reality.

First off, I think that if there are multiple universes (or a multiverse), you would only experience one. Second, I am a rabbi, not a mathematician or physicist, so I can’t prove the multiverse idea for you. What I can do is talk about the possibility of such a thing according to the Torah’s teaching. Third, and this is probably the most important, if you could somehow prove the multiverse, how would that help you?

I want to suggest the following article on our site for you to read, which may help you make sense of things, even though it does not address your question directly.

http://www.chabad.org/3318513

I will also add that the Torah teaches the concept of Teshuvah, which means repentance and return to G-d. The power of Teshuvah is such that it can change the past. Not change in the sense of make something else happen, but it can change the significance of a past event or action from negative to positive.

Please let me know if this helps. All the best,

Rabbi Shmary Brownstein

Chabad.org - Rabbis That Care

Multiverse ? — Christian Theology and Scientific Rationality

( Would a multiverse be compatible with Christian theology and scientific rationality? )

Appendix: Universe or Multiverse and/or Intelligent Design of Nature?

( Would a multiverse explain why our universe is “fine tuned” to support life? )

by Craig Rusbult, Ph.D.

This page supplements my page about The Anthropic Principle & Fine Tuning: Multiverse and/or Intelligent Design? and an overview-summary that I recommend reading first, before this page.

Here is a brief summary of

key concepts about a multiverse:

Explaining the Fine Tuning: We live in a universe where the properties of nature are fine tuned so they are “just right” for life. Why? Two currently plausible theories propose that either...

• we live in a universe that is intelligently designed, or

• our universe is part of a huge multiverse (containing many universes with different properties of nature, thus letting us “beat the odds” against fine tuning); this multiverse may or may not be designed.

It seems that neither of these theories can be proved or disproved,* so our evaluations of these theories can be strongly influenced by personal preference for a particular worldview and its associated way of life, plus other factors that include philosophy of science, and more.

* Speculations: Currently the most popular proposals for a multiverse claim theoretical support from cosmological inflation (early in the Big Bang) and string theory, but multiverse proponents acknowledge that direct observational evidence for their theory seems to be impossible, so we can ask “is it really science?” We should not think of a multiverse as an actual reality, but as apotential reality, a speculative proposal (with some scientific support) that we can imagine.

Beating the Odds: In a 5-card hand of poker, getting a royal flush (XJQKA of same suit) is highly improbable, so the odds against it are high. But if you deal a large number of hands, observing a royal flush becomes highly probable, so the odds favor it. Similarly, the odds against a fine-tuned universe are extremely high, but if we live in a huge multiverse (containing many universes with varying properties of nature) having one or more life-allowing universes becomes highly probable so the odds favor it, and we live in one of these life-allowing universes.

Universe-Types and Universe-Actualizations: When we ask “how many universes are in a multiverse?” we must consider two factors. Using calculations based on M-theory (which unifies 5 earlier string theories), scientists estimate that a multiverse might contain 10500 different types of universes; and each universe-type might occur in an immense number of actualized universes of the same type that would all have the same properties of nature but (due to having different initial conditions, plus the divergences allowed by quantum uncertainties and described by chaos theory)different histories of nature, with variations on similar basic developmental histories. / I say “might contain... types of universes” and “might occur... actualized universes” to remind you that these should be considered potential types and potential actualizations because, as explained above, there is no direct observational evidence for a multiverse.

Single-Universe or Multiverse-Universe: We might live in a single-universe (that exists independent from any other universes, so it’s not part of a multiverse) or in a multiverse-universe (that is part of a multiverse).

The Anthropic Principle — which states that because humans exist, we must observe a universe with properties that allow our existence — is logically valid, and this anthropic selection effect(placing a limit on WHAT can be observed) is compatible with either the presence or absence of intelligent design and a designer, because it doesn’t explain WHY our universe is fine tuned for life. But in a multiverse, beating the odds might explain WHY a universe with fine tuning exists, and a second selection effect might explain WHERE fine tuning is observed. { Can we also use aCanine Principle? }

Part 1 — A Multiverse: Christian Theology and Scientific Rationality

The Puzzle of Existence by Robert Mann, is an excellent overview of interesting ideas (scientific, philosophical, theological) that help us understand current thinking about a multiverse. After a summary and brief introduction, Mann continues by asking why is there Something instead of Nothing? (a traditional question) and (in a new question that can be imagined for a multiverse)Something instead of Everything? He then describes (using the mass of neutrons as one example of the many life-permitting features in our universe) the science of Our Atypical Universe with itsBiophilic Selection, and explains Cosmic Fine-Tuning, Cosmic Inflation, and how String Theory allows this proposal for a multiverse:

“There could be as many as 10500 kinds of ground states to [string] theory, each with its own particular properties and features. Our universe is presumably described by one of these kinds. ... Perhaps all of these different kinds of ground states — in other words, different kinds of universes — actually exist, with ours being one amongst this vast set.”

For this part of the paper (the first 6 pages) mainly I just learned from Robert in the science parts, and generally appreciated his skill as a thinker-and-writer who can effectively teach a coherent system of ideas that I find fascinating and intellectually stimulating.

But the final part of his paper (in the last 3 pages) — The Multiverse Paradigm, Theology’s New Challenge, The Duplication Dilemma, and Summary — raises important questions aboutChristian Theology and Scientific Rationality that I will respond to, based on...

Four Rational Principles we should use when asking

“Wouldn’t it be strange if EVERYTHING happens?”

This objection — claiming “it would be much too strange” if everything happens in a multiverse — is based mainly on philosophical preference rather than theological necessity. Here are some reasons to think we should say “wait a minute” and put the strangeness into perspective by thinking rationally:

• Rational Principle #1 (re: physical possibility) — There are important differences between an immense multiverse (where MANY THINGS happen) and an infinite multiverse (where EVERYTHING happens). The mathematics of infinity produces results that seem absurd in our normal non-infinite ways of thinking. An argument based on converting these mathematical absurdities into philosophical absurdities will seem much less impressive when we think about the important differences between an infinite multiverse (which is physically impossible, and would be very strange) and an immense multiverse (which might be possible, and would be less strange). ...[a concluding comment from AP/MaoID, about the difference between immensity and infinity, is not included here]... [recently, in 2016, I’ve added a paragraph about non-infinite mathematics for Probabilistic Resources versus Probabilistic Requirements]

• Rational Principle #2 (re: actual experience, here-and-now) — If we imagine an omnipresent super-observer who is simultaneously EVERYWHERE and who thus can observe all of the many things that would happen in an immense multiverse, this super-observer might see some strange things. But this would not occur with normal physical creatures like you and me, because we would observe things in the same way we do now, as one creature living in one universe. The strangeness of a multiverse is only in your imagination; in your actual experience, nothing would be different. There would not be a duplication dilemma.

• Rational Principle #2h (re: humility) — As a theological supplement to Principle #2, a humble theist should acknowledge that if God — who is an omnipotent super-observer, contrary to Principle #2 for creatures — understands the “many things” happening, and approves, that should be sufficient for us, whether or not we understand or approve.

• Rational Principle #3 (re: theology) — An essential principle of Judeo-Christian theology is our claim that God is sovereign. Therefore, Christians should believe that in an immense multiverse the “many things” that happen would include only what God allows to happen.

note: These 4 principles are quoted from the “Philosophy and Theology” section of my page about Anthropic Principle: Multiverse and/or Intelligent Design? that is abbreviated AP/MaoID in this page, and is summarized here.

Would a designed multiverse be a worthy way for God to create? ( yes, but... )

Yes, I agree with Robert in preferring (aesthetically and theologically) a single universe — cleverly designed by God so it will support human life — instead of a cleverly designed multiverse.

But whatever way God chose to create, we should say (and I’m sure Robert agrees) that “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” (Revelation 4:11, NIV)

And I agree with Robert that, despite this ultimate humility, in our current state of “not knowing how God created” we should use whatever we do know (when all things are considered, theologically and scientifically) to think about how God created, and to explain what we’re thinking. That is what Robert and I are trying to do, in his paper and my page, and in other ways. {more about methods of creation and appropriate humility}

Parts-of-Paper and Whole Paper: Although I’ve tried to describe Robert’s views accurately, I want to help you understand quickly so I’ve been selective by quoting some parts but not others. Therefore, if you want to know what he says and how, you should read his paper, The Puzzle of Existence.

Quotations in this page are from my page AP/MaoID== and The Puzzle of Existence by Robert Mann. {other presentations by Robert Mann}

Locations for Quotations: To help you know “where to look” so you can see the context of the parts I’m quoting, and what he says in-between, I’ll use a system to show the quotation-location. For example, the first citation below is labeled “147L6-147R9” in two parts that show the beginning & ending of the quoting. The right-side table shows 18 parts of page 147, including 147L6 and 147R9. The location of “147 L 6″ is on page 147, on the left side (L), a little more than halfway down (6). Similarly, “147R9” is on page 147, on Right side, near the bottom (9). I’ve assembled the paragraph below by using excerpts within this range, from 147L6 to 147R9.

Formats for Quotes & Non-Quotes & Comments: In this page, regular quotation marks (like “these two”) show that I’m quoting Robert’s paper or my AP/MaoID; and “smart quotes” are used for non-quotations; and my comments are in [square brackets]. To clarify who is saying what, many paragraphs begin with RM (Robert Mann) or CR (Craig Rusbult) so you’ll know whose ideas are being described. {other papers & talks by Robert Mann}

page 147

147L1 147R1

147L2 147R2

147L3 147R3

147L4 147R4

147L5 147R5

147L6 147R6

147L7 147R7

147L8 147R8

147L9 147R9

A Duplication Dilemma ? (this would not be a problem for Christian theology)

RM: As an example to illustrate “a number of subordinate interrelated problems that science and theology must both contend with in the context of a multiverse paradigm,” Robert Mann describes {in 147L6-147R9} the Duplication Dilemma: “Consider a universe that is infinite in spatial extent and in which there is an unbounded amount of energy [note by CR: this is one of the proposed mechanisms for producing an “infinite” multiverse, and it correctly illustrates the weirdness that would occur in the infinite multiverse that is proposed by some scientists], everywhere obeying the laws of physics in our observable patch. ... By simply allowing matter and energy to realize all possible configurations that are permitted by the known laws of physics [which would produce an infinite number of actualized universes, each having different initial conditions and thus different histories, even though each actualized universe is the same universe-type and thus has the same properties of nature]... there is enough time, space, and matter to realize all possible known configurations of every allowed physical system” so “any given physical system, individual, or society will experience everything it can experience.” And what about you? “Since human DNA has a finite number of configurations, your body will have a duplicate in this infinite universe.” In fact, “such duplicates will occur infinitely many times” so you (via your duplicates) will experience everything you can experience, because “all possible social, psychological, and physical outcomes occur” so “at any given instant in which you made an apparent choice, there is an equivalent situation somewhere out there in which your duplicate made a different choice. If you have ever wondered what life might be like if you had not met your spouse, taken that job, or passed that test, you can be confident that somewhere else in the multiverse your duplicates have had these experiences.”

CR: This does seem strange, until we remember Principle #2 which is the fact that YOU only experience what is happening to you here-and-now in our universe. IF there is an immense multiverse, your experience would not be any different than it is now. Even though the potential “duplication” sounds strange when it’s described in vivid language, the strangeness is only in your imagination; in your actual experience, nothing would occur that is unusual in any way.

CR: And when RM asks you to “Consider a universe...” he should say (and he would agree) “Imagine a universe...” because any type of multiverse is speculative (so it must be imagined) and an infinite multiverse is physically impossible, as explained in Principle #1. Therefore we should ask, “Would duplication be an actual problem, or only an imagined problem that occurs only in imaginative speculations about ‘everything’ (not just many things) happening in an impossible infinite multiverse?”

If Duplicates Exist, We Are Not Unique (this would not be a problem)

RM: “Duplication poses interesting theological challenges,... [especially] a loss of uniqueness. If I am replicated many times in the multiverse, in what sense can I be understood to be a child of God, being worth more than many sparrows? To be sure, loss of uniqueness is a theological issue, one too easily dismissed by its critics. {148L4-148L5}”

CR: No, duplication is not a “theological challenge.” Yes, it can be “easily dismissed” because we have a common practical precedent in our world (where ‘duplication’ is not considered a problem for identical twins) plus three logical reasons (based on three rational principles for thinking about an imaginary strangeness if “everything happens”) that are explained in my AP/MaoID:

First, remember Principle #1 and ask, “Would duplication be an actual problem, or only an imagined problem that occurs only in imaginative speculations about ‘everything’ happening in an infinite multiverse that is physically impossible?”

Second, remember Principle #2. Even if duplicates exist, this would not be a theological problem because each person (you and the genetic duplicate) would be living independently — with no knowledge of the other person — in different universes, and God would hold each of you morally accountable for the way you live, for your decisions and actions in your own here-and-now situations. This would be similar to identical twins (having the same DNA, and usually the same family environment) living in our world now, which causes no theological problems because God holds each twin accountable, as an individual person, for the way they live. If identical twins are not a problem for God (if He “approves” of these humans, as described in Principle #2h) then we should not consider twins to be a theological problem; and if actual twins (that do occur) are not a problem, potential duplicates (that might occur) are also not a problem.

Third, remember Principle #3. Judeo-Christian monotheists who believe the Bible will believe that God is sovereign. We should reject an atheistic interpretation of a multiverse. Instead, when we think about “many things happening” we should view this as “only things allowed by God” because God has sovereign control over everything that occurs everywhere in His creation. If God created an immense multiverse, He could decide that life will exist only on our Earth — and He could achieve this goal in two ways, either by miraculously creating life only on Earth (if life cannot be naturally produced by a chemical evolution from non-living chemicals) or (if life can and does naturally evolve) by “killing the life” whenever it occurs on other planets — and this is what would occur, no more and no less; or God could also create life, or allow life, in other places in our universe, or in more than one universe, perhaps in an immense number of universes. And whatever God decides — whether it’s life only on Earth, or also on other planets, or also in other universes — that is fine with me, and is compatible with what the Bible teaches.

a general comment: In agreement with Robert, I personally would prefer (for aesthetic and theological reasons) to live in a designed single-universe. But, to a greater extent than Robert, I think a designed multiverse-universe is compatible with Bible-based Christian theology. By contrast, I think one type of proposed multiverse is not compatible with Christian theology:

MWI - Duplicates in Quantum-Split Histories? (this WOULD be a major problem)

As explained above and below, “duplicates” would not be a problem (practical, philosophical, or theological) in a normal multiverse. But in one very strange type of proposed multiverse — which is not mentioned in Mann’s paper — duplicates would be a theological problem, although not a practical problem. { In a common classification system what I’m calling a “normal multiverse” is Levels 1 or 2, and the “very strange” multiverse is Level 3. }

Going beyond the scientific assertions of quantum physics, a Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) proposes that during each quantum interaction every possible result is physically actualized in a different branch of history, with each branch actually happening in its own physical universe. { Why is MWI not necessary, and not useful? }

If this quantum-splitting occurs, it would produce an unimaginably immense number of branching histories because the universe contains a huge number of elementary particles, and these are continually (often zillions of times each second) involved in quantum-interactions that would produce MW-Splitting, and each interaction has a huge number of possible quantum-results; IF every possible result, from each quantum interaction in the universe, produces a different branch of history during one instant of time, during the following instant each of these branches will be split-again into an immense number of different results, and this continuous sequential branching would have occurred zillions of times every second for the past 13.8 billion years, producing an exponentially growing number of history-branches. Wow!

All of these histories would occur in worlds having the same universe-type, and all begin with the same initial conditions, so an MWI-multiverse would not be useful in a non-design explanation for the fine tuning of our universe. But MWI is useful for arguing against design-directed action during the history of nature, since everything that (with non-zero probability) could happen — including a natural origin of life and all of its possible developments during biological evolution — would happen in some branches of history, and these branches would be (due toanthropic selection) where we are.

What theological problems occur with a Many Worlds Interpretation?

A. Identity and Accountability: In an MWI-multiverse,

in almost all branches of mwi-history, you were never born;

but in a few branches, you were born and then during your life you “say YES to God” and are reconciled with Him;

and in a few branches, you were born and then you “say NO to God.”

In this situation, which “history of you” would be used by God for accountability, for evaluating your moral/spiritual thoughts and actions? The basic problem is that an MWI-multiverse (if it really exists, but I don’t think it does) would destroy the here-and-now principle that makes duplication a non-problem in other types of hypothetical multiverses where “you only experience what is happening to you here-and-now” (this would stay the same with MWI) and (here is the big difference with MWI) if duplicates exist, “God would hold each of you morally accountable for the way you live, for your decisions and actions in your own here-and-now situations.” By contrast, with MWI you have zillions of duplicates that really are YOU (sort of) because YOU are thinking every possible thought while making every possible decision, and physically doing every possible action, in each here-and-now; and these differing thoughts-and-actions (mega-schizophrenia!) lead to an immense number of divergent future histories that will be experienced by some form of “you” without any control by you, that all begin with your current here-and-now and continue diverging in your future here-and-nows.

B. Uncontrolled Evil and Suffering: The essence of MWI, with every possible quantum-result happening, seems to deny the possibility of divine control. But in Christian theologies (Arminian or Calvinistic) God is sovereign, and whatever happens is only what God allows and/or causes to happen. Without any divine control, MWI would allow the existence of history-branches with a wide variety of uncontrolled evils and sufferings, thereby violating Principle #3: “in an immense multiverse the ‘many things’ that happen would include only what God allows to happen.”

For both A and B, there is a major difference between an MWI-multiverse and non-MWI multiverses: