Is the Multiverse-Theory real or rubbish science?

  • Thread starter Thread starter freesoulhope
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
john_doran said:
you guys are freaking me out…
Click to expand...
Isn’t it lovely that “all turned into one” means the same thing as pointing UP and grunting!?

Apparently some people are rather like my dog, who when I point at the morsel I’ve tossed on the floor for her stares at my finger in rapt anticipation (of what I’m not sure, perhaps the morsel).

Only a complete lack of a sense of poetry (and linguistics) could account for the word “universe” meaning only “universe=blob” and not “uni - verse = one turning” by those who actively constructed the word from the linguistic parts available to them from their native language.

The “one” implies a singularity. The “turning” implies a thing turned and a thing that motivates the turn.

Yes, that’s interpreting, but that is the essence of language.

But, like nearly everything on these forums, people will argue to the death (figuratively) about the silliest things. 🙂
 
Hello,
paulcosmith said:
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.
Click to expand...
If this were true, then two immediate problematic questions arise. Why was the Big Bang an immediate cataclysmic cosmic event and not a controlled spillage of space/time into this universe? Why is space/time not still continuing to be siphoned into this universe from a white hole?
 
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.
Click to expand...
Believe it exotheology (the theological implicantion of intelligent life in others dimentions and other plantes) are here to stay.

In fact, Telihad the Charding basically said that Gods purpose for the universe was to give rise to intelligent consciousness, that means humans in the earth.
So in not imposible to intelligent life to exist too in another places. But the question will be what was their original sin or like the angels they are Holy?
If not there is a different strategy strategy of salvation? Or like demons, cannot be saved?
Have you noticed that CC exorcists use the word portals to reffer to places were demons enter our world.
Yes is sound a bit Startreky but this is why I love CC discusion forums. I do not thing too many other churches have people thinking on that.
 
Just wanted to mention that I believe the universe, under the idea of a multiverse, would mean the area we can actually come into contact with. This means that separate “universes” are not merely far away, but impossible to reach, and that our universe is all that we can actually perceive.
The idea of multiverses, to my limited knowledge, stems from quantum relations of probability; int he multiverse, when any piece of matter has two directions or paths to take, it takes both, splitting into multiple universes. This seems unlikely due to the idea of where all the matter might come from, yet it is not for me to decide what is possible and what is not…some times contemplating these ideas is a way of understanding only that we (or I) know nothing…
 
Big Bang and Multiverse theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

If I remember correctly, I discussed this already here:

The Big Bang Theory

(It’s a long thread).
 
It might seem to somebody that MV theory is simply an attempt to get around the “God question” in two areas:

a) Quantum unpredictability
b) The “fine tuned universe”

However, I do not think its fair to say they are intentionally trying to exclude God. What scientists are trying to do is find naturalistic, humanly-explainable answers for these questions. The “God dodging” is not intentional.

I personally think its quite silly to assume that we have evolved to the point where there is a 1:1 correspondence between “what is” and what our advanced primate brains can imagine (in the Thomistic sense of “imagination”). It does not suprise me that at some points, reality will simply elude us.

Yet still, this is a genuine attempt of finite creatures to explain the infinite on their own terms. Noble in a way but breathtakingly naive in another.

I personally do not give much credence to MV theory, as it seems to be more ridiculous than the pre-scientific myths that it is trying to improve upon. Seems to me more likely the world is carried on the back of a giant turtle- at least we can check for the turtle.
 
I thought that the multiverse was something from books by Michael Moorcock, especally the Eternal Champion series.

I didnt realise that it was an actual scientific theory, but Im not completly suprised.
 
Just an off-topic alert: That detour on the etymology of the term ‘universe’ – albeit fascinating in its own right – sheds no light on the question put in the OP. It is the usage of the term ‘multiverse’ which is relevant to the question put in the OP.

Let’s check in here. How many people are talking about THE MULTIVERSE THEORY and how many are talking about multiple realms beyond our own universe?

So far nobody on this thread has touched on branes. Yet that seems to be central to multiverse theory. Am I wrong? Here are some links:

The Beauty of Branes
When Branes Collide: Stringing together a new theory for the origin of the universe

MIT’s Lisa Randall: Two Branes are Better Than One
Models with Warped Branes to Explain Weak Gravity?
Higher Dimensional Geometry
SD-brane gravity fields and rolling tachyons
Supersymmetry physics on (and off) the brane
 
Thing said:
Cannot be science if no empirical evidence…when in Rome…
Click to expand...
There are two poles to science:

theoretical science (the math)
observation science (the measurements)

Historically, folks went along with what they thought they knew until some folks started SEEING exceptions to the rules commonly accepted during their time. They used observational science to move knowledge forward.

To explain the exceptions to the ‘rule’, theoretical science started crunching the numbers. Then a new ‘rule’ emerged.

Sometimes the new ‘rule’ posited a reality which had not yet been seen. So the observational scientists had to go back to work figuring out new ways of measuring creation until they could see the hitherto unseen reality.

… when in Rome do as the Romans do. 🙂
 
List all current theories for reality…
List empirical evidence supporting theories…
Can known evidence cross-support said theories…
Are said theories contradictory…
Has reality been proven…
Philosophy - 1
Science - 0

:eek: “Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous”
 
Thing said:
List all current theories for reality…
List empirical evidence supporting theories…
Can known evidence cross-support said theories…
Are said theories contradictory…
Has reality been proven…
Philosophy - 1
Science - 0
Click to expand...
There are two poles to science:

theoretical science (the math)
observation science (the measurements)

Therefore it is unnecessary to list empirical evidence supporting theories of the multiverse.

Moreover, the OP asks if the theory is real science or rubbish science.
 
freesoulhope said:
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?
Click to expand...
In its modern form it was put forward by Martin Reece as a possible get out for atheists who squirm when the strong anthropomorphic principle is mentioned.

Reece himself seems to be one of those rare creatures, a genuinely open minded agnostic. Paul Davies being another one.
 
According to String Theory mathematics, the extra dimensions could adopt any of tens of thousands of possible shapes, each shape theoretically corresponding to its own universe with its own set of physical laws.

Concerning the Big Bang I believe that the Big Bang could have been caused by the “Big Bounce” this theory claims that the unvierse could have came from another collapsing universe, this is an actual field of reaserch in Quantum Loop Gravity, hopefully soon we could know what was before the Big Bang, however if the Big Bang was caused previosuly by an universe that collapsed then one must ask how was that previous universe created? At the end something must have preceded all the paralel universes n all the dimensions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top