Is the Multiverse-Theory real or rubbish science?

[freesoulhope]

For years, the Big Bang theory, and cosmology in general, wasn’t accepted as a ligitmate science untill fairly recently; but people reckon they have proof now; and from what i can understand its accepted as true, but has some critics. Now we have the multiverse theory. Is there any ligitimate scientific reason to think that there might be a multiverse? How can it be a possibility if time space and matter began from an infinetly dense point called a singularity? Is this just a naturalistic futile attempt to overthrow the Bigbang? Or is it a ligitimate scienctific inquiry?

 

[paulcosmith]

I’m by no means an expert on the theory, but I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad theory.

One basis for the theory is that material consumed by a black hole is emitted through a white holem and the Big Bang may have been one of those white holes emitting material from another universe. I don’t see that necessarily solves the “God problem” as some might put it, because there should be an initial creation event at some point in some universe. That is, there either had to be a single universe that started the multiverse, or a number of universes sprang into existence at once, which either way leaves a moment of initial creation.

Those who argue that the multiverse removes the need for God aren’t thinking all the way through.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The theory of multiple universes like the theory of multiple dimensions is I believe the result of mathmatical calculations. But I believe math can theorically prove lots of things that have no visible means of being tested at this time. I doubt it has much if any impact on how one views God’s role in creation as supreme Creator. He could I assume have zillions of universes and zillions of dimensions if He wishes.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

For years, the Big Bang theory, and cosmology in general, wasn’t accepted as a ligitmate science untill fairly recently; but people reckon they have proof now; and from what i can understand its accepted as true, but has some critics. Now we have the multiverse theory. Is there any ligitimate scientific reason to think that there might be a multiverse? How can it be a possibility if time space and matter began from an infinetly dense point called a singularity? Is this just a naturalistic futile attempt to overthrow the Bigbang? Or is it a ligitimate scienctific inquiry?

“UNIVERSE” means the “one ‘verse’ of God”. If it’s not God’s “verse”, whose is it?

Since God has only ONE “verse”, the term “multiverse” is inherently oxymoronic.

If our “us-verse” is not the only one, then our “us-verse” added to all the other “them-verses” would still be God’s UNI-VERSE.

Those who are searching for reality will find it, as God deems it wise for them to find it.

NOTHING can “overthrow the existence of God”. Certainly no pitifully weak intellection of the trivial human mind when compared to the “mind” of even the least of God’s angels, much less God’s mind itself.

 

[Wolseley]

Is it possible to travel to a different universe, one that’s maybe a little better than this one?

Sometimes I think this one we’re in was one of the early experimental models-----it has some flaws that might have been corrected in later models…

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Is it possible to travel to a different universe, one that’s maybe a little better than this one?

Sometimes I think this one we’re in was one of the early experimental models-----it has some flaws that might have been corrected in later models…

We are the 2.0 patchlevel 4 (2.0p4) version.

From 2.0p5 to 2.9p665 the feature set was frozen, and the functioning subsystems were stabilized, with only a slight cost in power usage, and the interface (God-Humanity) was improved slightly.

Then some very odd emergent phenomena showed up in 2.9p666.

It’s looking rather dubious as to whether the investors will fund the 3.0 version, as they are looking into replacing the current developer with one of the emergent phenomena from the 2.9v666 build, as he’s (the phenom) told them (the investors) that he can “fix the problem”, but will need to do a complete re-write, change the product name from “ALL” to “MINE”, and NEEDS all the investors credit card numbers to do so.

The investors, under pressure from “somewhere”, are expected to announce the project start of the MINE 1.0p0 sometime in February (Eastern-Eternal-Standard-Time).

…the angels are NOT happy!

 

[Ahimsa]

We are the 2.0 patchlevel 4 (2.0p4) version.

From 2.0p5 to 2.9p665 the feature set was frozen, and the functioning subsystems were stabilized, with only a slight cost in power usage, and the interface (God-Humanity) was improved slightly.

Then some very odd emergent phenomena showed up in 2.9p666.

It’s looking rather dubious as to whether the investors will fund the 3.0 version, as they are looking into replacing the current developer with one of the emergent phenomena from the 2.9v666 build, as he’s (the phenom) told them (the investors) that he can “fix the problem”, but will need to do a complete re-write, change the product name from “ALL” to “MINE”, and NEEDS all the investors credit card numbers to do so.

The investors, under pressure from “somewhere”, are expected to announce the project start of the MINE 1.0p0 sometime in February (Eastern-Eternal-Standard-Time).

…the angels are NOT happy!

You sound like The Architect from The Matrix.

 

[PoliSciProf]

I once had the good fortune to spend some time talking with Father Stanley Jaki, winnner of the Templeton Prize and author of many books on science and religion. Father Jaki told me re a similiar question that the term “universe” must logically mean the totality of all things physically existing. I think this is correct. Therefore, multiple universes is a misnomer. There is still one totality of all things existing.

 

[ribozyme]

Has anyone read the cosmologies of Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin, and Andrei Linde? Shows that multiverse can be created *ad infinitum *through inflation and God is no longer necessary in cosmology.

 

[Nullasalus]

Has anyone read the cosmologies of Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin, and Andrei Linde? Shows that multiverse can be created *ad infinitum *through inflation and God is no longer necessary in cosmology.

Ignoring the problems with past-eternal inflation, Paul Davies (not exactly an apologist) had this to say recently:

*A second reason that the laws of physics have now been brought within the scope of scientific inquiry is the realization that what we long regarded as absolute and universal laws might not be truly fundamental at all, but more like local bylaws. They could vary from place to place on a mega-cosmic scale. A God’s-eye view might reveal a vast patchwork quilt of universes, each with its own distinctive set of bylaws. In this “multiverse,” life will arise only in those patches with bio-friendly bylaws, so it is no surprise that we find ourselves in a Goldilocks universe — one that is just right for life. We have selected it by our very existence.

The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse. *

Worse yet, once you start getting into past-eternal concepts, you start to beg questions about what role intelligence can play if it were eternally around in the past. Even if God is ‘no longer necessary’, God still remains a strong and plausible option (I speak at the bare minimum deist level of God/intelligence here. But then, cosmological arguments for God always refer to that level besides.)

 

[bogeydogg]

let us first seperate multiverse and universe cosmologies. Einsteinian Relativity brought forth the idea of the Big Bang. The reason that the Big Bang was not accepted for so long, even by Einstein himself i.e. the universal corrective, was because it brought cosmology back into the picture. During the late 19th early 20th century the idea of the universe was that it was static. Einstein using Rhiemann (did I spell that right) geometry postulated that the universe was expanding and the galaxies were flying away from each other. Not only that he figued out that space and time and matter were all related hence relativity. If one could wind the cosmological clock backward then the universe would cease to expand and begin to contract at which time there would be a point of non-existence and thus the universe would need a cause. This is why cosmology (the study of the origins of the universe) came back and Hume and his de facto proteges suddenly had a problem because causality was thought to have been wiped out three centuries earlier, just ask Kant. The extreme disfavor of secular astronomers and physicists is why theories such as the oscillating universe, the Hawking model, the multiverse and anthropic principles have come into existence. It is because the secular scientists hate that the universe began to exist.

However, as has been pointed out, the multiverse, while mathematically possible, does not do away with the question of it’s own beginning.

 

[VociMike]

*The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse. *

Thanks for citing that. I’m amazed that so many people can’t see what is stated here. If there is indeed an eternal universe-making thing, why does it exist and why does it behave the way it does?

What’s really involved here is a form of “Anything but God” thinking. A good many people are prepared to believe in any eternal thing with arbitrary abilities, as long as that thing is not God.

 

[Steadfast_love]

I think it’s real science but a rubbish model, like the electrical gears and cogs that Maxwell was thinking of when he wrote his equations, the raisin pudding theory of atoms that early chemists worked with, and Colombs law as the underpinning of the totality of most of physics and all of chemistry.

 

[john_doran]

Has anyone read the cosmologies of Alan Guth, Alexander Vilenkin, and Andrei Linde? Shows that multiverse can be created *ad infinitum *through inflation and God is no longer necessary in cosmology.

not true - vilenkin actually showed that chaotic inflationary cosmological models actually entail an ijitial singularity in the finite past, a fact which linde latere acknowledged. and if there’s an initial singularity, then there’s still a requirement to explain where it came from, and why it changed when it changed.

 

[Wolseley]

not true - vilenkin actually showed that chaotic inflationary cosmological models actually entail an ijitial singularity in the finite past, a fact which linde latere acknowledged. and if there’s an initial singularity, then there’s still a requirement to explain where it came from, and why it changed when it changed.

Oftwhile balbulous, mithre ahead, with goodly trowel in grasp and ivoroiled overalls which he habitacularly fondseed, like Haroun Childeric Eggeberth he would caligulate by multiplicables the alltitude and malltitude until he seesaw by neatlight of the liquor wheretwin 'twas born, his roundhead staple of other days to rise in undress maisonry upstanded (joygrantit!), a waalworth of a skyerscape of most eyeful hoyth entowerly, erigenating from
next to nothing and celescalating the himals and all, hierarchitectitiptitoploftical, with a burning bush abob off its baubletop and with larrons o’toolers clittering up and tombles a’buckets clottering down.

 

[Cadellin]

…the term “universe” must logically mean the totality of all things physically existing. I think this is correct. Therefore, multiple universes is a misnomer. There is still one totality of all things existing.

Quite right. If there were other universes what would be the collective name for all the univeses? The cosmos? One is then tempted to ask: what if there are other cosmoses; what would be the collective name for all the cosmoses? Creation? What if there are other creations… and so on. We need a word for all that exists and that word is universe, from uni meaning one.

As for the existence of multiple universes (as understood in the original question); their existence is postulated to account for certain phenomena in cosmology. In my opinion, they are just like the epicycles in the Greek theory of planetary motion. Epicycles were postulated to account for the retrograde motion of the planets. Sometime later somebody (Copernicus) came up with a theory that did away with the need for epicycles. Perhaps cosmology is at the same stage of development now that celectial mechanics was 500 years ago. Some day somebody might come up with a different way of looking at things which does away with the need for multiple universes. If multiple universes should be shown to exist then we’re back to the beginning of this posting. In other words, the multiple universes would simply be other (even if fundumentally different) regions of the one universe.

 

[MH84]

“UNIVERSE” means the “one ‘verse’ of God”. If it’s not God’s “verse”, whose is it?

Since God has only ONE “verse”, the term “multiverse” is inherently oxymoronic.

If our “us-verse” is not the only one, then our “us-verse” added to all the other “them-verses” would still be God’s UNI-VERSE.

Those who are searching for reality will find it, as God deems it wise for them to find it.

NOTHING can “overthrow the existence of God”. Certainly no pitifully weak intellection of the trivial human mind when compared to the “mind” of even the least of God’s angels, much less God’s mind itself.

I like this post. You guys are over my head with your knowledge. But I would want to know from those who believe in God, what would be the point of God creating a multi layered universe, unless the other “them-verses” contain life as well.

I mean its not like after we die we (creation) would have access to all this anyway would it.

Also, its not like God needed to create such a complex universe for Himself or to prove His capabilities to creation, obviously.

 

[paulcosmith]

But I would want to know from those who believe in God, what would be the point of God creating a multi layered universe, unless the other “them-verses” contained life as well.

But wouldn’t the same question arise about God creating other planets? And until we do, don’t we have to ask why God bothered creating all those other planets as well?

And if there is indeed life on other planets, that doesn’t necessarily undercut our beliefs. See this article for a discussion.

 

[MH84]

But wouldn’t the same question arise about God creating other planets? And until we do, don’t we have to ask why God bothered creating all those other planets as well?

And if there is indeed life on other planets, that doesn’t necessarily undercut our beliefs. See this article for a discussion.

Thanks for the article. What alarms me though is this comment:

Brother Consolmagno said the Bible is also replete with references to or descriptions of “nonhuman intelligent beings” who worship God. For example, he said the Scriptures talk about angels, “sons of God” who took human wives, and “heavenly beings” that “shouted for joy” when God created the earth.

Is he for real. Its like he is fairly certain of extraterrestrials. Anyway, I think I would feel uncomfortable if it was ever “proven” that there are layers within the universe AND those layers contained separate life. For starters, this would mean that the focus on the sacrifice of Jesus on calvary on Good Friday circa 29AD, loses more and more of its centrality in time.

 

[Cadellin]

I…I would want to know from those who believe in God, what would be the point of God creating a multi layered universe, unless the other “them-verses” contain life as well.

I mean its not like after we die we (creation) would have access to all this anyway would it.

Also, its not like God needed to create such a complex universe for Himself or to prove His capabilities to creation, obviously.

I’ve often wondered why God created more than is necessary for our salvation. One of the psalms says, ‘The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows forth his handiwork.’ Then there is the hymn, ‘I see the stars. I hear the mighty thunder. Thy power throughout the universe displayed…Then sings my, soul my saviour God to three, how great thou art.’ The vastness and complexity of the universe fills us with awe at God’s might and majesty.

To ask what is the point in God creating it all is to reduce God to something that can fit into our little minds. It is an attempt to know the mind of God (which isn’t a bad thing). But God’s mind is beyond ours. All we can do is to be so overcome with awe at his creation that we fall to our knees and cry, ‘My God, how great thou art.’ Anything that makes us do that can only aid our salvation.

Ponder these questions by all means, but don’t get uptight about them. You never know, we might find the answers one day. But be aware that if we do they will probably increase our sense of the mystery of God, not diminish it (as evolution and quantum theory did). Be overwhelmed, not over anxious, by the little of God’s glory that science reveals.