Infinite Universes

[LifeWithChrist]

Appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut, Chain Breaker.

My personal opinion, as with several others in my field, is the whole notion of there being a multiverse or infinite universe is that it’s not even a testable theory. In fact, it’s not even a theory at all. Rather, it is a prediction made out of inflationary theory. Basically, inflationary theory was put forth so as to solve “problems” that implied fine tuning in the Big Bang theory, including the “flatness” and “horizon” problems. They, for us who are open to theistic interpretations, aren’t problems. It’s honestly just a sign of God’s handiwork and only a problem if you want them to be. Thus, the whole concept itself replaced the fine tuning of the Big Bang that made it look like “a put up job” with even greater fine tuning of a hypothetical inflationary field. As long as it didn’t scream of divine guidance, theorists were okay with it. They basically arbitrarily made gravity a repellent force in the first 10^-43 seconds of our universe with no particular reasoning other than solving the “problems” mentioned above.

The whole notion is really non-problematic tot Catholics, as even if a multiverse existed a transcendent cause is still needed (BVG Theorem, Space-Time Geometry Proofs, etc). An absolute beginning is, at its core, unavoidable. Fr. Spitzer does a spectacular job explaining this below. A point of creation for all of physical reality is necessary, and implies a transcendent cause. His entire video series is really remarkable.

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2xnK-tY0uf8

Basically, if classical inflation is likely wrong, and the “postmodern” inflation is out of the realm of normal science, a multiverse of any extent is totally speculatory and unfounded.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut, Chain Breaker.

My personal opinion, as with several others in my field, is the whole notion of there being a multiverse or infinite universe is that it’s not even a testable theory. In fact, it’s not even a theory at all. Rather, it is a prediction made out of inflationary theory. Basically, inflationary theory was put forth so as to solve “problems” that implied fine tuning in the Big Bang theory, including the “flatness” and “horizon” problems. They, for us who are open to theistic interpretations, aren’t problems. It’s honestly just a sign of God’s handiwork and only a problem if you want them to be. Thus, the whole concept itself replaced the fine tuning of the Big Bang that made it look like “a put up job” with even greater fine tuning of a hypothetical inflationary field. As long as it didn’t scream of divine guidance, theorists were okay with it. They basically arbitrarily made gravity a repellent force in the first 10^-43 seconds of our universe with no particular reasoning other than solving the “problems” mentioned above.

The whole notion is really non-problematic tot Catholics, as even if a multiverse existed a transcendent cause is still needed (BVG Theorem, Space-Time Geometry Proofs, etc). An absolute beginning is, at its core, unavoidable. Fr. Spitzer does a spectacular job explaining this below. A point of creation for all of physical reality is necessary, and implies a transcendent cause. His entire video series is really remarkable.

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2xnK-tY0uf8

Basically, if classical inflation is likely wrong, and the “postmodern” inflation is out of the realm of normal science, a multiverse of any extent is totally speculatory and unfounded.

Thanks for the link LifeWithChrist. I watched it, and it was good. However I have always had problems with arguments that conclude the existence of something based on the “improbability” of something else within the context that we our now speaking in. To me if it is even possible that a multiverse exists, then why choose God as a cause to the bigbang when a physical cause can explain it just as well?

In fact, as a basic rule of thumb, I assume that God never causes anything that in principle can be caused by physical events unless its absolutely necessary. The question then arises was it necessary for God to be the immediate and only cause of the BigBang. If not, then why is God assumed to be the most probable cause?

Would you say that natural evolution never happened because of improbability?

Having said that, I agree that multiverse theory is not a scientific theory, and might not even be a genuine hypothesis. I just think its more important for people to understand that no possible physical theory of the universe and its origins can explain the existence of physical reality regardless of what form it takes. Its logically impossible for physical reality to be the absolute cause of physical reality. And so I am comfortable with scientific speculation regarding a pre-bigbang state of affairs. It does not matter either way.

 

[LifeWithChrist]

Thanks for the link LifeWithChrist. I watched it, and it was good. However I have always had problems with arguments that conclude the existence of something based on the “improbability” of something else within the context that we our now speaking in. To me if it is even possible that a multiverse exists, then why choose God as a cause to the bigbang when a physical cause can explain it just as well?

That’s not exactly an improbability argument. I’ve heard him lecture, and it’s more based on pure necessity. The argument isn’t that the big-bang is the beginning which God created. That’s open for us to believe in either way. It’s that the implications of our physical reality are the need for a transcendant, personal, immensely powerful God. You’re absolutely right in saying our existance can’t explain itself.