God vs the multiverse

[Moriarty]

Multiverse theory, as I understand it has more than a couple different extensions. One such is that the universe, being so massive on scale, is likely to start repeating random events in its own sphere. Meaning their belief that the set of random events, down to individuals, that created our solar system, planets, Earth, and people are all likely to repeat again at some point in the universe and occur in the exact same order.

I call bull on that one and give it little consideration.

A second being that every time something could happen, it does happen, even if it's in another universe. Say you have the decision to either go right or left and choose left, the theory would state that the decision forced another parallel universe to form where you chose to go right.

Again, I call bull on this one and see as even less likely.

Then there is the one predominant  in this thread. While just a theory, I do give it more credence than the other two theories. One supporting theory is that dark matter and dark energy are the necessary effects of two parallel universes having influence on one another. Which I also cannot dismiss out of hand.

[josephpalazzo]

Well, one can imagine a hundred different versions of the multiverse. The problem I have with this is that this is reminiscent of the medieval times when philosophers were musing from their ivory tower. It's all right to speculate as long as it is not called a scientific theory.

[Moriarty]

Well, one can imagine a hundred different versions of the multiverse. The problem I have with this is that this is reminiscent of the medieval times when philosophers were musing from their ivory tower. It's all right to speculate as long as it is not called a scientific theory.

I agree. I also think even the scientists who come up with these theories realize they're just theories without testable, observable results yet. It's also sad that religion would try to use them to their own end.

However, in regards to the last theory, I am no mathematician of significant level, but theoretically it does seem to possibly answer a lot of the questions such as what happens to the matter that enters a super massive black hole, what is dark matter, why is the universe still speeding up and expanding. Not saying they are definitive answers, just that the convenience of them fitting the multiverse theory is reason enough to explore it further.

[SGOS]

Well, one can imagine a hundred different versions of the multiverse. The problem I have with this is that this is reminiscent of the medieval times when philosophers were musing from their ivory tower. It's all right to speculate as long as it is not called a scientific theory.

I agree. I also think even the scientists who come up with these theories realize they're just theories without testable, observable results yet. It's also sad that religion would try to use them to their own end.

However, in regards to the last theory, I am no mathematician of significant level, but theoretically it does seem to possibly answer a lot of the questions such as what happens to the matter that enters a super massive black hole, what is dark matter, why is the universe still speeding up and expanding. Not saying they are definitive answers, just that the convenience of them fitting the multiverse theory is reason enough to explore it further.

A lot of scientific achievements start as speculations.  That's the importance of imagination in science.  But people can and do get carried away with their imaginations and cling to ideas that cannot be.  Darwin came up with an idea.  It was a very good idea, and the only controversy it posed was that it clashed with religious doctrine.  He didn't have a lot of proof, but it was a good idea that met no real scientific stumbling blocks.  Back then it could have turned out that he was wrong.  But as our knowledge of biology and chemistry grew, things kept popping up that supported Darwin's idea.  In hind sight, Darwin almost appears to know more than he actually did, but mostly he just had a good idea that turned out to be correct.  Not all good ideas turn out to be correct, however.

[josephpalazzo]

Well, one can imagine a hundred different versions of the multiverse. The problem I have with this is that this is reminiscent of the medieval times when philosophers were musing from their ivory tower. It's all right to speculate as long as it is not called a scientific theory.

I agree. I also think even the scientists who come up with these theories realize they're just theories without testable, observable results yet. It's also sad that religion would try to use them to their own end.

However, in regards to the last theory, I am no mathematician of significant level, but theoretically it does seem to possibly answer a lot of the questions such as what happens to the matter that enters a super massive black hole, what is dark matter, why is the universe still speeding up and expanding. Not saying they are definitive answers, just that the convenience of them fitting the multiverse theory is reason enough to explore it further.

I'm going to filter out a few concepts for you (This may take longer than you've bargained   ).

In regard to Dark Matter(DM) and Dark Energy(DE), these are not dependent on cosmological models. Here is what I mean:

Both DM and DE are postulated on the basis of two observations:

(1) DM is postulated on the fact that there isn't enough mass to sustain the structure of galaxies. Many other postulates have been proposed, but most of them bring more problems than solutions. So, right now, DM is the prevailing choice. There are a number of theories trying to explain the nature of DM. Again, there are several theories, but the prevailing one is the existence of WIMP's (weakly interacting massive particles). These are particles not part of the present Standard Model(SM). And they have not been observed, although there are underground experiments trying to do just that.

(2) DE is postulated on the fact that the universe is accelerating. The main candidate as an explanation of DE is quantum vacuum energy. But this is a work in progress as the calculation from QFT gives a vacuum energy that is 10 [sup:1xwofxas]120[/sup:1xwofxas] times bigger than what is observed to do the acceleration of the universe that we know from our observations.

As you can see, DM and DE are not dependent on cosmological models, be it the Big Bang Theory, or any of the cyclic models, or the Multiverse. The latter is an attempt to answer the question: why is there life in our universe, and the answer from Multiverse is that there are an infinite number of universes and we happen to live in one of those that can sustain life. It basically is another anthropic principle, and as I have already said, this is a copout answer: it isn't scientific and it's untestable .

[Moriarty]

Well, one can imagine a hundred different versions of the multiverse. The problem I have with this is that this is reminiscent of the medieval times when philosophers were musing from their ivory tower. It's all right to speculate as long as it is not called a scientific theory.

I agree. I also think even the scientists who come up with these theories realize they're just theories without testable, observable results yet. It's also sad that religion would try to use them to their own end.

However, in regards to the last theory, I am no mathematician of significant level, but theoretically it does seem to possibly answer a lot of the questions such as what happens to the matter that enters a super massive black hole, what is dark matter, why is the universe still speeding up and expanding. Not saying they are definitive answers, just that the convenience of them fitting the multiverse theory is reason enough to explore it further.

I'm going to filter out a few concepts for you (This may take longer than you've bargained   ).

In regard to Dark Matter(DM) and Dark Energy(DE), these are not dependent on cosmological models. Here is what I mean:

Both DM and DE are postulated on the basis of two observations:

(1) DM is postulated on the fact that there isn't enough mass to sustain the structure of galaxies. Many other postulates have been proposed, but most of them bring more problems than solutions. So, right now, DM is the prevailing choice. There are a number of theories trying to explain the nature of DM. Again, there are several theories, but the prevailing one is the existence of WIMP's (weakly interacting massive particles). These are particles not part of the present Standard Model(SM). And they have not been observed, although there are underground experiments trying to do just that.

(2) DE is postulated on the fact that the universe is accelerating. The main candidate as an explanation of DE is quantum vacuum energy. But this is a work in progress as the calculation from QFT gives a vacuum energy that is 10 [sup:2syyv5yf]120[/sup:2syyv5yf] times bigger than what is observed to do the acceleration of the universe that we know from our observations.

As you can see, DM and DE are not dependent on cosmological models, be it the Big Bang Theory, or any of the cyclic models, or the Multiverse. The latter is an attempt to answer the question: why is there life in our universe, and the answer from Multiverse is that there are an infinite number of universes and we happen to live in one of those that can sustain life. It basically is another anthropic principle, and as I have already said, this is a copout answer: it isn't scientific and it's untestable .

I've seen some of your math and you're obviously talented. But I can hang with you on theoretical physics. So I'm cool with whatever you wrote. I mirrored what you said in my own post that they were both untestable and unobservable, so I by no means stated them as science fact. I merely said that it does merit more research on the possibility that someday they will become testable and observable, which are not out of the realm of possibility in the future. Because they are not CURRENTLY testable does not mean they're not possible or would not be in the future. Sometimes science tests and researches to disprove theories and answer them by other default positions like the one you propose.

[josephpalazzo]

I agree. I also think even the scientists who come up with these theories realize they're just theories without testable, observable results yet. It's also sad that religion would try to use them to their own end.

However, in regards to the last theory, I am no mathematician of significant level, but theoretically it does seem to possibly answer a lot of the questions such as what happens to the matter that enters a super massive black hole, what is dark matter, why is the universe still speeding up and expanding. Not saying they are definitive answers, just that the convenience of them fitting the multiverse theory is reason enough to explore it further.

I'm going to filter out a few concepts for you (This may take longer than you've bargained   ).

In regard to Dark Matter(DM) and Dark Energy(DE), these are not dependent on cosmological models. Here is what I mean:

Both DM and DE are postulated on the basis of two observations:

(1) DM is postulated on the fact that there isn't enough mass to sustain the structure of galaxies. Many other postulates have been proposed, but most of them bring more problems than solutions. So, right now, DM is the prevailing choice. There are a number of theories trying to explain the nature of DM. Again, there are several theories, but the prevailing one is the existence of WIMP's (weakly interacting massive particles). These are particles not part of the present Standard Model(SM). And they have not been observed, although there are underground experiments trying to do just that.

(2) DE is postulated on the fact that the universe is accelerating. The main candidate as an explanation of DE is quantum vacuum energy. But this is a work in progress as the calculation from QFT gives a vacuum energy that is 10 [sup:3pmhainl]120[/sup:3pmhainl] times bigger than what is observed to do the acceleration of the universe that we know from our observations.

As you can see, DM and DE are not dependent on cosmological models, be it the Big Bang Theory, or any of the cyclic models, or the Multiverse. The latter is an attempt to answer the question: why is there life in our universe, and the answer from Multiverse is that there are an infinite number of universes and we happen to live in one of those that can sustain life. It basically is another anthropic principle, and as I have already said, this is a copout answer: it isn't scientific and it's untestable .

I've seen some of your math and you're obviously talented. But I can hang with you on theoretical physics. So I'm cool with whatever you wrote. I mirrored what you said in my own post that they were both untestable and unobservable, so I by no means stated them as science fact. I merely said that it does merit more research on the possibility that someday they will become testable and observable, which are not out of the realm of possibility in the future. Because they are not CURRENTLY testable does not mean they're not possible or would not be in the future. Sometimes science tests and researches to disprove theories and answer them by other default positions like the one you propose.

It's a valid point but you need to keep in mind what we mean by "untestable". There is the case of where the theory makes a prediction, but it's untestable[sup:3pmhainl]1[/sup:3pmhainl] due to a lack of technical development. The Unrhue effect is one such example: a typical acceleration of 10m/s[sup:3pmhainl]2[/sup:3pmhainl], (earth's acceleration due to gravity), would yield a temperature of the order, T ~ 10[sup:3pmhainl]-20[/sup:3pmhainl]K, and we simply don't have any type of apparatus to measure such a small quantity, and furthermore, we don't know if we can develop such technology. OTOH, there is also untestable[sup:3pmhainl]2[/sup:3pmhainl] in the sense that not even in the theoretical realm, can we make a prediction. Such is the case of the Multiverse Theories. In this second sense of the word "untestable", it is much more difficult to overcome.

[St Giordano Bruno]

 
There maybe no direct evidence of a multiverse that at least there is a far better logical argument for a multiverse than there is for God. We know that all planets don't  have to exactly like our earth to exist as a planet at all. Venus at we know is hellishly hot and Jupiter is a gas giant with no solid surface for life to get a foothold. But back in the ancient  times people had no idea that the planet they were living on could have been any different, and theologians may well be arguing all planets would have to be like our earth. They could argue "of course there must be a God, because why would any planet have to have conditions so perfect for the existence of life?  “why is the air we are breathing not poisonous gas for instance?  Later astronomers over the centuries discover planets do not need to be like our earth and totally hostile to life as we know it thus shooting down those ancient theologians arguments that any planet - to be a planet at all - have to be like our earth.   


Universes need not necessarily be fine-tuned for the existence of life just as all planets need not necessarily provide to conditions hospitable to life. There could well be a plethora of dead universes just as there are a plethora of dead planets. Theologians are arguing even that our universe is the only possible one and it is so fine-tuned, therefore there must be a God. But IMO that is as silly as believing all planets have to be earthlike therefore there must be a God back in ancient times.   

[josephpalazzo]

The theists line of thinking is: we don't know something but God knows. In many circumstances, that kind of thinking can provide solace, security and a good feel. I have nothing against that as long as theists don't enforce their fairy tale on me or the rest of society.

Now, those scientists who have proposed the Multiverse are NOT imposing that stuff on anyone, so that's okay by me. However, the danger is that they are falling into the same kind of thinking as the theists: we don't know why the universe supports life, but we can explain it with the Multiverse.  Even though it is a plausible explanation, and a better one than the theist, it still doesn't conform to scientific principles, which is: a scientific theory should give us some predictions, and it should give us some tests by which the theory can be confirmed or discarded. The Multiverse fails on those two counts.