Some folks imagine God like an obsessive minimalist with a single terrarium on His divine shelf. But I’m with you, David—the Holy One’s an infinite artist with a messy studio, splattering cosmoses across spacetime like Jackson Pollock on ayahuasca.
This vision of the multiverse as divine overflow rather than God’s competition is the kind of theological judo move that makes my monk-heart do a little liturgical twerk. Creation not as a singular act but as ceaseless divine improvisation? Yes, please. And this line? “Perhaps the final version of myself is constructed from across my variants.” That’s not just cosmic—it’s pastoral. That’s grace with quantum legs.
It’s not heresy if your soul sighs with recognition.
Long time fan, first time caller. And I’ve got none of the academic background in philosophy, science, or theology with which to weigh in on this topic.
But I am trying to understand the claims being made. In your view of a multiverse, then, is an "individual hypostasis" the sum of all our variants? That is, do particular variants in themselves not possess an individual hypostasis? If so, in what sense do such variants possess divine dignity as serious instances of creation each destined for the eschaton?
Obviously, here we're touching on matters like personhood and soteriology. In the eschaton I am reconciled to others, to animals, plants, and even the dirt - which I do love so - to such a degree that though my personhood is not violated yet I am seriously made blissfully one with all in the same way God is one with all. That can't be my objection.
But when you say, "the mechanism of a plurality of timelines and universes across which my individual hypostasis is spread out," do you mean by "individual hypostasis" some new qualia independent of both personhood and the ultimate unity of the eschaton? I think this is where I'm getting tripped up. If there is a "variant" of me, surely that is simply another way of saying there is another person who I need to be reconciled to. They are not a variant of me. They are simply not me.
I mean this pretty seriously. Surely our universe, observable and not, is already the multiverse. That is, the multiverse, by virtue of being in the single nominative case, must ultimately be a universe. I guess what I’m saying is that a multiversal grammar seems to me to be contrived. Am I misunderstanding the science or the philosophy at work here, or anything you've said? Or am I agreeing with you?
I’ve often wondered similarly as one who likewise holds to a Tegmark’s Level IV model. Christian resurrection and eschatological-soteriological logic might imply that even the hypostatic self is a fractal property comprised of an ensemble of “fractal selves” that converge on the hypostatic self that functions as a kind of dynamic attractor in the eschatological state. But, that’s just where my mind goes, in such a model the state of affairs might be different.
Right. I guess I just don’t understand the philosophical or theological premises of multiversal theory yet. I get that it’s a theory (indeed, a number of theories) scientists have suggested as a tool to try to solve certain problems in physics.
Where I’m confused is in how multiversal theory might interact with a theistic account of reality, as Armstrong attempts above. Use of such terms as “fractal selves” and “individual hypostasis across multiverses” confuses me, as such terms seem to be reductions of theological ideas to those physical laws multiversal theories propose to be plural. But theological ideas are not physical laws. Doesn't such a blurring in the case of the multiverse erase the real participation and community between Theos and us - we mere instances of infinite flux? That is, doesn't such a confusion propose not just a novel grammar but a novel understanding of the very nature of our relation to the divine, which shifts between universes? And wouldn't such a state of affairs be impossible in a theistic model, which always depends on real communion and real continuity between the uncreated Divine and the created?
I'm not sure, but that's where my thoughts have led me thus far.
I’m not sure that the underlying logic changes between one universe and a multiverse model. In a sense all a multiverse is is a Universe made of sheaves of contained, bounded verses, a kind of Universe of universes, with a common Alpha and Omega. The God-world(s) relationship doesn’t fundamentally change in this model, the only wrinkle I see it adding is a kind of modal diversity into how God relates to the worlds he creates. The Divine Act here functions as both curvature between quantity and quality and field attractor to all constituent existent reality, around whom all emerge and curve toward Theotic coherence within (and maybe beyond) their respective worlds. Reality expands but the metaphysical logic doesn’t change substantially.
Missing from the Reading Guide to this stunning piece are Armstrong’s “Words in the Word: On the Multiverse” of almost four years ago (July 20, 2021) and “God is the Destiny of All Worlds” (Mercy on All – January 30, 2022).
Combine those with this piece, and surely we have the Last Word on the infinite God, were that not an oxymoron. (Armstrong, who often cites David Bentley Hart—see The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss [Yale, 2013]—clearly works in that same expansive theological register.)
Armstrong’s earlier explorations of infinite creation and of God as the eschatological horizon of all possible worlds amplify the depth of this essay’s insight, offering a theology that is at once cosmic and intimate, expansive yet anchored in trust—showing how divine plenitude holds reality together without flattening its tensions.
Each piece strengthens the others, forming a durable and far-seeing account. As a pastor, not a theologian, I get a down-to-earth sense of well-reasoned, vigorous trust in the scope and mercy of God—expansive, unsentimental, and quietly radical. “This preaches!”
Interesting! One thing that comes to mind when thinking of the multiverse is how to think of the Incarnation. If there was an Incarnation, did the Logos incarnate in only one multiverse? My most heretical thought is that the Incarnation might have occurred for multiple species, planets, and universes. A twist to that would be that, under the eternal realm, Incarnation is a single event, a hyperdimensional plane that transcends space and time. Through our finite perspective, it happened multiple times, however. This view of Incarnation would favor some “extra-calvinisticum” and not the more Maximian (and Lutheran?) view of Incarnation.
II originally dislike the idea but then a couple years ago reading you and Roland and Cuza and reading up on motor realism.it's sort of made me reconsider the idea that an infinite universe or an infinite number of finite universes would essentially be the same content if we can even call it unlimited content. to me the idea of vacuum and an infinite number of finite beings always seemed really bizarre as a child the idea of vacuum being something to me still is bizarre and I don't believe it but an infinite number of finite beings would be like a number line so I don't think there is really any logical reason against it. the world either is or it is not and it appears to be and so all things may be possible and I've always liked the idea that there's something somewhere sometime and somewhat. And the idea of actualizing all infinite potentials sort of had me convinced
Some folks imagine God like an obsessive minimalist with a single terrarium on His divine shelf. But I’m with you, David—the Holy One’s an infinite artist with a messy studio, splattering cosmoses across spacetime like Jackson Pollock on ayahuasca.
This vision of the multiverse as divine overflow rather than God’s competition is the kind of theological judo move that makes my monk-heart do a little liturgical twerk. Creation not as a singular act but as ceaseless divine improvisation? Yes, please. And this line? “Perhaps the final version of myself is constructed from across my variants.” That’s not just cosmic—it’s pastoral. That’s grace with quantum legs.
It’s not heresy if your soul sighs with recognition.
Whoa! Amen.
Long time fan, first time caller. And I’ve got none of the academic background in philosophy, science, or theology with which to weigh in on this topic.
But I am trying to understand the claims being made. In your view of a multiverse, then, is an "individual hypostasis" the sum of all our variants? That is, do particular variants in themselves not possess an individual hypostasis? If so, in what sense do such variants possess divine dignity as serious instances of creation each destined for the eschaton?
Obviously, here we're touching on matters like personhood and soteriology. In the eschaton I am reconciled to others, to animals, plants, and even the dirt - which I do love so - to such a degree that though my personhood is not violated yet I am seriously made blissfully one with all in the same way God is one with all. That can't be my objection.
But when you say, "the mechanism of a plurality of timelines and universes across which my individual hypostasis is spread out," do you mean by "individual hypostasis" some new qualia independent of both personhood and the ultimate unity of the eschaton? I think this is where I'm getting tripped up. If there is a "variant" of me, surely that is simply another way of saying there is another person who I need to be reconciled to. They are not a variant of me. They are simply not me.
I mean this pretty seriously. Surely our universe, observable and not, is already the multiverse. That is, the multiverse, by virtue of being in the single nominative case, must ultimately be a universe. I guess what I’m saying is that a multiversal grammar seems to me to be contrived. Am I misunderstanding the science or the philosophy at work here, or anything you've said? Or am I agreeing with you?
I’ve often wondered similarly as one who likewise holds to a Tegmark’s Level IV model. Christian resurrection and eschatological-soteriological logic might imply that even the hypostatic self is a fractal property comprised of an ensemble of “fractal selves” that converge on the hypostatic self that functions as a kind of dynamic attractor in the eschatological state. But, that’s just where my mind goes, in such a model the state of affairs might be different.
Right. I guess I just don’t understand the philosophical or theological premises of multiversal theory yet. I get that it’s a theory (indeed, a number of theories) scientists have suggested as a tool to try to solve certain problems in physics.
Where I’m confused is in how multiversal theory might interact with a theistic account of reality, as Armstrong attempts above. Use of such terms as “fractal selves” and “individual hypostasis across multiverses” confuses me, as such terms seem to be reductions of theological ideas to those physical laws multiversal theories propose to be plural. But theological ideas are not physical laws. Doesn't such a blurring in the case of the multiverse erase the real participation and community between Theos and us - we mere instances of infinite flux? That is, doesn't such a confusion propose not just a novel grammar but a novel understanding of the very nature of our relation to the divine, which shifts between universes? And wouldn't such a state of affairs be impossible in a theistic model, which always depends on real communion and real continuity between the uncreated Divine and the created?
I'm not sure, but that's where my thoughts have led me thus far.
I’m not sure that the underlying logic changes between one universe and a multiverse model. In a sense all a multiverse is is a Universe made of sheaves of contained, bounded verses, a kind of Universe of universes, with a common Alpha and Omega. The God-world(s) relationship doesn’t fundamentally change in this model, the only wrinkle I see it adding is a kind of modal diversity into how God relates to the worlds he creates. The Divine Act here functions as both curvature between quantity and quality and field attractor to all constituent existent reality, around whom all emerge and curve toward Theotic coherence within (and maybe beyond) their respective worlds. Reality expands but the metaphysical logic doesn’t change substantially.
Thank you. This helps a bit. I need to think more about it.
Missing from the Reading Guide to this stunning piece are Armstrong’s “Words in the Word: On the Multiverse” of almost four years ago (July 20, 2021) and “God is the Destiny of All Worlds” (Mercy on All – January 30, 2022).
Combine those with this piece, and surely we have the Last Word on the infinite God, were that not an oxymoron. (Armstrong, who often cites David Bentley Hart—see The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss [Yale, 2013]—clearly works in that same expansive theological register.)
Armstrong’s earlier explorations of infinite creation and of God as the eschatological horizon of all possible worlds amplify the depth of this essay’s insight, offering a theology that is at once cosmic and intimate, expansive yet anchored in trust—showing how divine plenitude holds reality together without flattening its tensions.
Each piece strengthens the others, forming a durable and far-seeing account. As a pastor, not a theologian, I get a down-to-earth sense of well-reasoned, vigorous trust in the scope and mercy of God—expansive, unsentimental, and quietly radical. “This preaches!”
Interesting! One thing that comes to mind when thinking of the multiverse is how to think of the Incarnation. If there was an Incarnation, did the Logos incarnate in only one multiverse? My most heretical thought is that the Incarnation might have occurred for multiple species, planets, and universes. A twist to that would be that, under the eternal realm, Incarnation is a single event, a hyperdimensional plane that transcends space and time. Through our finite perspective, it happened multiple times, however. This view of Incarnation would favor some “extra-calvinisticum” and not the more Maximian (and Lutheran?) view of Incarnation.
II originally dislike the idea but then a couple years ago reading you and Roland and Cuza and reading up on motor realism.it's sort of made me reconsider the idea that an infinite universe or an infinite number of finite universes would essentially be the same content if we can even call it unlimited content. to me the idea of vacuum and an infinite number of finite beings always seemed really bizarre as a child the idea of vacuum being something to me still is bizarre and I don't believe it but an infinite number of finite beings would be like a number line so I don't think there is really any logical reason against it. the world either is or it is not and it appears to be and so all things may be possible and I've always liked the idea that there's something somewhere sometime and somewhat. And the idea of actualizing all infinite potentials sort of had me convinced