A friend of mine recently told me that he thought god was a better supported theory than the multiverse...
His reason for this is that there are lots of people who have "personal evidence" for god's existence, and there is no evidence for the multiverse.
Now, I have no problem explaining why his evidence for god isn't really evidence, but I didn't know of any hard evidence for the multiverse. In fact, I'm pretty sure there isn't any yet, but it is a much more viable model than god because of the mathematics behind it and how it explains things. But I don't really understand all this well enough to explain how it is a supported model.
I've googled this but papers are either really really vague dumbed down news articles, or technical university stuff. Can anyone explain what support we have for the multiverse, or point me to a web site with a good explanation?
The multiverse is conjecture. There's nothing wrong with conjecture in science as long as you represent it as such. Unfortunately, theists don't mention the fact that real scientists know it's conjecture, and unfairly represent it as a desperate attempt to explain nature without God.
OP, you are allowing yourself to be put on the defense. You need to point out that shifting the burden of proof doesn't hold. Firstly one must define what "god" is, otherwise what you are discussing is a word, not a concept.
Look up arguments regarding the incomprehensibility of god and godly attributes and go from there.
In this case "god" is just a placeholder for whatever the interlocutor perceives it to be.
If it were a Muslim, it'd be Allah, Christian Yahweh, ancient Greek would be Zeus, etc etc.
The multiverse has more arms and would out punch god.
Quote from: "Shol'va"OP, you are allowing yourself to be put on the defense. You need to point out that shifting the burden of proof doesn't hold. Firstly one must define what "god" is, otherwise what you are discussing is a word, not a concept.
Look up arguments regarding the incomprehensibility of god and godly attributes and go from there.
In this case "god" is just a placeholder for whatever the interlocutor perceives it to be.
If it were a Muslim, it'd be Allah, Christian Yahweh, ancient Greek would be Zeus, etc etc.
Yeah, this about sums it up.
Also what aileron said.
Quote from: "Drummer Guy"A friend of mine recently told me that he thought god was a better supported theory than the multiverse...
His reason for this is that there are lots of people who have "personal evidence" for god's existence, and there is no evidence for the multiverse.
Now, I have no problem explaining why his evidence for god isn't really evidence, but I didn't know of any hard evidence for the multiverse. In fact, I'm pretty sure there isn't any yet, but it is a much more viable model than god because of the mathematics behind it and how it explains things. But I don't really understand all this well enough to explain how it is a supported model.
I've googled this but papers are either really really vague dumbed down news articles, or technical university stuff. Can anyone explain what support we have for the multiverse, or point me to a web site with a good explanation?
The Multiverse is more philosophical than scientific. There are no equations that say: here, we have a Multiverse. As Aileron pointed out, it is a conjecture, or as I would say, a pseudo-scientific hypothesis as it is not testable. Of course, this feeds into the theists' argument for atheist being desperate to replace God by the Multiverse. The counter-argument is that there are a number of physicists who don't buy into it - Peter Woit, Paul Reinhardt, David Gross, Neil Turok to name a few .
Quote from: "Drummer Guy"His reason for this is that there are lots of people who have "personal evidence" for god's existence, and there is no evidence for the multiverse.
Personal evidence that cannot be shown to another person should not be called evidence. It's nothing more than belief. Both God and the multiverse fall into the category of belief. It is pointless to argue which belief is better. Evidence is all that really matters.
http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/Project ... verse.html (http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/Projects/moderncosmo/Sean's%20mutliverse.html)
QuoteThe Multiverse theory for the universe has been a recently accepted theory that describes the continuous formation of universes through the collapse of giant stars and the formation of black holes. With each of these black holes there is a new point of singularity and a new possible universe. As Rees describes it, "Our universe may be just one element - one atom, as it were - in an infinite ensemble: a cosmic archipelago. Each universe starts with its own big bang, acquires a distinctive imprint (and its individual physical laws) as it cools, and traces out its own cosmic cycle. The big bang that triggered our entire universe is, in this grander perspective, an infinitesimal part of an elaborate structure that extends far beyond the range of any telescopes." (Rees 3) This puts our place in the Multiverse into a small spectrum. While the size of the earth in relation to the sun is minuscule, the size of the sun, the solar system, the galaxy, and even the universe, could pale in comparison to this proposed Multiverse. It would be a shift in thinking that may help explain our big bang theory and possibly give light to the idea of parallel universes.
It is a theory, but in point of fact it does offer an explanation of what happens on the other side of the Big Bang. God has no progenitor- no direct ancestor. A multiverse at least describes a possibility of a continuous state of existence. It also allows for the finite nature of our universe, not a god with no beginning and no end.
There is math for the multiverse, it's just that there's math for a single universe as well, and we don't have enough evidence yet to justify adhering to one or the other. It's important to note, however, that the multiple universe hypothesis was invoked as an explanation for issues in physics, not as an ad hoc refutation of the fine tuning argument.
If I understand it correctly, the multiverse theory is a theory in the scientific sense at this moment, correct? In that case, it then means it is on par with germ theory, theory of gravity etc.
Drummer Guy, ask your friend if he "believes" in germs and gravity.
Quote from: "stromboli"http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/Projects/moderncosmo/Sean's%20mutliverse.html
QuoteThe Multiverse theory for the universe has been a recently accepted theory that describes the continuous formation of universes through the collapse of giant stars and the formation of black holes. With each of these black holes there is a new point of singularity and a new possible universe. As Rees describes it, "Our universe may be just one element - one atom, as it were - in an infinite ensemble: a cosmic archipelago. Each universe starts with its own big bang, acquires a distinctive imprint (and its individual physical laws) as it cools, and traces out its own cosmic cycle. The big bang that triggered our entire universe is, in this grander perspective, an infinitesimal part of an elaborate structure that extends far beyond the range of any telescopes." (Rees 3) This puts our place in the Multiverse into a small spectrum. While the size of the earth in relation to the sun is minuscule, the size of the sun, the solar system, the galaxy, and even the universe, could pale in comparison to this proposed Multiverse. It would be a shift in thinking that may help explain our big bang theory and possibly give light to the idea of parallel universes.
It is a theory, but in point of fact it does offer an explanation of what happens on the other side of the Big Bang. God has no progenitor- no direct ancestor. A multiverse at least describes a possibility of a continuous state of existence. It also allows for the finite nature of our universe, not a god with no beginning and no end.
Well, the physics community is highly divided on this question. Here's what David Gross said in one interview:
QuoteThere are frustrating theoretical problems in quantum field theory that demand solutions, but the string theory "landscape" of 10[sup:3ft5ecsl]500[/sup:3ft5ecsl] solutions does not make sense to me. Neither does the multiverse concept or the anthropic principle, which purport to explain why our particular universe has certain physical parameters. These models presume that we are stuck, conceptually.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/ ... ysics/all/ (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/06/qa-david-gross-physics/all/)
Peter Woit had some questionable reservations over wikipedia's page on the multiverse:
QuoteThe quality of Wikipedia entries about mathematics is often quite good, but unfortunately the same cannot be said for their entries about physics. I happened to take a look today at the Wikipedia entry for Multiverse, which is an outrageously one-sided promotional piece for pseudo-science.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6758 (http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6758)
Having studied QFT, GR and cosmology quite extensively in my life, I agree fully with these known physicists: Multiverse is a copout and a pseudo-science.
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Having studied QFT, GR and cosmology quite extensively in my life, I agree fully with these known physicists: Multiverse is a copout and a pseudo-science.
I have actually contemplated such a theory on my own a couple years ago. Perhaps I have a calling in theoretical pseudo-physics. :-D
My mistake, I did not take note that multiverse is not a scientific theory.
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Having studied QFT, GR and cosmology quite extensively in my life, I agree fully with these known physicists: Multiverse is a copout and a pseudo-science.
I have actually contemplated such a theory on my own a couple years ago. Perhaps I have a calling in theoretical pseudo-physics. :-D
You could do no worse than Michio Kaku - get on the speach circuit, get famous and make oodles of money.
Physics of the Impossible: A Scientific Exploration into the World of Phasers, Force Fields, Teleportation, and Time Travel by Michio Kaku (//http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Impossible-Scientific-Exploration-Teleportation/dp/0307278824/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394570663&sr=8-1&keywords=physics+of+the+impossible)
From a reviewer:
QuoteKaku's passion is the impossible, and in this book he explores different kinds of impossibilities. Class I ideas -- -- force fields, invisibility, phasers and death stars, teleportation, telepathy, psychokinesis, robots, extraterrestrials and UFOs, starships, antimatter and anti-universes -- could come true within a hundred years. Class II impossibilities, such as travel faster than light, time travel and parallel universes, may be possible in the next millennium. Class III ideas, like perpetual motion machines and precognition, may never be possible, given the underlying science.
And here I've been hoping I will die and wind up in a universe where I am thin and rich. Damn.
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.
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.
Quote from: "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.
Quote from: "Moriarty"Quote from: "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.
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.
Quote from: "Moriarty"Quote from: "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 :wink: ).
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 .
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Moriarty"Quote from: "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 :wink: ).
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.
Quote from: "Moriarty"Quote from: "josephpalazzo"Quote from: "Moriarty"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 :wink: ).
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.
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.
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.