You could try to show how that specific scenario has problems that you think are of concern. — Andrew M
Everett’s scientific journey began one night in 1954, he recounted two decades later, “after a slosh or two of sherry.” He and his Princeton classmate Charles Misner and a visitor named Aage Petersen (then an assistant to Niels Bohr) were thinking up “ridiculous things about the implications of quantum mechanics.” During this session Everett had the basic idea behind the many-worlds theory, and in the weeks that followed he began developing it into a dissertation.
your quote explicitly does not exclude a finite number of branches — Andrew M
the universe proper need not be limited to what can be directly seen — Andrew M
branching does not entail more than one universe. — Andrew M
MWI's main conclusion is that the universe (or multiverse in this context) is composed of a quantum superposition of very many, possibly even non-denumerably infinitely many, increasingly divergent, non-communicating parallel universes or quantum worlds
Get a copy of the Tao te Ching. — T Clark
even if the alleged miracles are not on quite as firm a footing as the Church may suppose (it doesn't help that the Church picks its own supposedly skeptical peer-reviewers in the form of a "Devil's Advocate;" I don't know if that practice has fallen by the wayside), you will note that the Church here at least aspires to employ scientific rigor in its investigations of purportedly supernatural or sacred phenomena, contra those (including perhaps yourself) who might insist that such matters are not for science. — Arkady
If a sick person recovers through prayer and without medicine, that’s nice, but not a miracle. She had to be sick or dying despite receiving the best of care. The church finds no incompatibility between scientific medicine and religious faith; for believers, medicine is just one more manifestation of God’s work on earth.
Perversely then, this ancient religious process, intended to celebrate exemplary lives, is hostage to the relativistic wisdom and temporal opinions of modern science. Physicians, as nonpartisan witnesses and unaligned third parties, are necessary to corroborate the claims of hopeful postulants. For that reason alone, illness stories top miracle claims. I never expected such reverse skepticism and emphasis on science within the church.
Not all investigation involves detecting the putative cause of a phenomenon directly: sometimes just its historical traces are examined. For instance, sometimes impactors strike the Earth, and are vaporized completely, meaning their characteristics have to be inferred from the marks they've left behind. — Arkady
For instance, some believers appeal to God to intercede on their behalf and on behalf of others, including with regard to health. It is perfectly valid to investigate whether those who receive prayers for God's intercession in their disease have better health outcomes than those who receive no such prayers. This experiment has been performed, and found no statistically relevant difference. — Arkady
certainly am not a religious historian, but it is my understanding that the Protestant Revolution was about the belief that you didn't need to go through priests to have a relationship with God. — T Clark
I thought it might be worthwhile to start a thread asking how some people can believe in 'God'. — dclements
Anyways, my point is that many Christians who believe they have some direct access to 'God' are about as crazy as C.C Lewis said about someone who tried to claimed they where a fried egg — dclements
here have been many empirical arguments which purported to demonstrate the existence of God. The entire body of literature on the arguments from design, arguments from fine-tuning, natural theology, intelligent design creationism, and biblical archeology all, in some form or another, seek to provide evidence for the existence of God and (in cases) the veracity of the Bible. — Arkady
For the simple reason that 'to speak of' is to locate within the realm of phenomena,
Or to go from non-being into being. To be created. — T Clark
"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao." — T Clark
They imply one universe with a (possibly finite) number of branches in superposition. — Andrew M
These postulates don't imply God playing dice, spooky action at a distance or consciousness-created reality. — Andrew M
The discomfort that I feel is associated with the fact that the observed perfect quantum correlations seem to demand something like the "genetic" hypothesis. For me, it is so reasonable to assume that the photons in those experiments carry with them programs, which have been correlated in advance, telling them how to behave. This is so rational that I think that when Einstein saw that, and the others refused to see it, he was the rational man. The other people, although history has justified them, were burying their heads in the sand. I feel that Einstein's intellectual superiority over Bohr, in this instance, was enormous; a vast gulf between the man who saw clearly what was needed, and the obscurantist. So for me, it is a pity that Einstein's idea doesn't work. The reasonable thing just doesn't work.
Twenty or twenty-five years ago, I started reading books about a different way of seeing the world. I read Alan Watts descriptions of eastern religions and philosophies. When I read the Tao te Ching, I felt a sense of recognition, both from a philosophical and an emotional perspective. I’ve thought about it a lot over the years and read the book probably twenty times. — T Clark
When I was younger, the idea that the world can be perfectly predicted if we know where everything is and where it is going at one moment in time was really attractive. — T Clark