Multi-Universe Theory?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PatThePoet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PatThePoet

Guest
Only for those scientifically learned fellows:

Why is the Multi-Universe argument called a THEORY when the idea of a deity called mere HYPOTHESIS?

thanks
 
The Multiverse theory, as of yet, has no supporting evidence. Even if it could be proven, it does not, in any way, disprove the existence of God.

I think the problem with most modern thought is the fallacy to think that science can prove or disprove God’s existence. Science only applies to what exists in this universe, not what, if anything, exists outside of it.
 
CollegeBoi1985 said:
The Multiverse theory, as of yet, has no supporting evidence. Even if it could be proven, it does not, in any way, disprove the existence of God.

I think the problem with most modern thought is the fallacy to think that science can prove or disprove God’s existence. Science only applies to what exists in this universe, not what, if anything, exists outside of it.
Click to expand...
The theory of inflation provides strong evidence for it. I hope Alan Guth receives a Nobel Prize for his work on inflation.
 
PatThePoet said:
Only for those scientifically learned fellows:

Why is the Multi-Universe argument called a THEORY when the idea of a deity called mere HYPOTHESIS?
Click to expand...
The idea of God is not a hypothesis, and the multi-verse idea is not a true scientific theory. Heavy use of the terms has changed their meanings in colloquial channels, but their scientific definitions haven’t changed.

A hypothesis is a falsifiable supposition about the material world meant to explain something. A scientific theory is simply a hypothesis whose findings have been corroborated many times over by the scientific community at large. “Theory” doesn’t mean “certainly true,” nor does it mean “fairly unlikely.” Rather, it means just what it says it means: “a large pool of data seems to point to it.” Anyone who takes it to be more or less than that is in error.

To this end, the idea of God is certainly not a hypothesis, because his existence isn’t falsifiable (ie you can’t prove he doesn’t exist), and the idea of the Multi-verse doesn’t have the widespread support it would need to reach the status of “theory.”
 
I agree with Blaine. And by the way, Ribozyme, if you’re talking inflation you’re probably thinking about the big bang theory rather than multi-verse.

As far as I’m aware, the multiverse hypothesis/theory is just one of several concepts that may be able to explain our universe in particular, which is mathematically consistent, but without direct evidence for it as yet, and I’m not sure if they’ve figured out a way to falsify it.
 
phooney said:
I agree with Blaine. And by the way, Ribozyme, if you’re talking inflation you’re probably thinking about the big bang theory rather than multi-verse.

As far as I’m aware, the multiverse hypothesis/theory is just one of several concepts that may be able to explain our universe in particular, which is mathematically consistent, but without direct evidence for it as yet, and I’m not sure if they’ve figured out a way to falsify it.
Click to expand...
I am taking about eternal inflation.
 
Thanks, that does look quite interesting, but I’m getting into the area of this paper where the mathematics is starting to look a bit daunting!

He calls it unassailable, but I wonder how this paper was/is being received in the scientific community?

We’re already so insignificant when you look at the size of the universe, confirmation of a multi-verse would be even more humbling! I wonder if the laws of physics in those other universes would be the same or different.

So all in all, thanks for the link, it does look like a great read, and he seems to be arguing that the false vacuum only need happen once in all of eternity to produce an infinite number of pocket universes. Quite how he got from the well confirmed observations of our expanding universe, to the multiverse still eludes me, but I’ll try to figure it out if I can.
 
The problem with infinite regresses or eternal multiveses (although they might well be true) is that they don’t actually explain anything. Don’t get me wrong, the theories them selves, do explain things such as “fine tunning”, but the multiverse idea, as well as the infinite regress hypothesis, sounds like the kind of idea one might think up when you cannot find a good “physical explaination” for physical reality. It simply does away with an ultimate explanation and goes into a tangent of infinities. It doesn’t explain physical reality or the laws of physics, even if it explains our universe. In this sense, i find such theories to be shallow ideas.

The other problem is that an infinite of something, cannot be measured, therefore we can never know if an infinite actually exists; the answer will always be finite. Therefore the multiverse theory failed, emprically, before it was ever thought about. A finite number of universes can be measured, so I’m more inclined to take that veiw; but then we have to find some evidence of those universes within this one. A scientists can only suppose that there is an infinite of something, because it convienently fits the data, but that doesn’t mean that its the right idea. There is no good reason to think that this universe has come from and infinite of something.
 
MindOverMatter said:
The problem with infinite regresses or eternal multiveses (although they might well be true) is that they don’t actually explain anything. Don’t get me wrong, the theories them selves, do explain things such as “fine tunning”, but the multiverse idea, as well as the infinite regress hypothesis, sounds like the kind of idea one might think up when you cannot find a good “physical explaination” for physical reality. It simply does away with an ultimate explanation and goes into a tangent of infinities. It doesn’t explain physical reality or the laws of physics, even if it explains our universe. In this sense, i find such theories to be shallow ideas.

The other problem is that an infinite of something, cannot be measured, therefore we can never know if an infinite actually exists; the answer will always be finite. Therefore the multiverse theory failed, emprically, before it was ever thought about. A finite number of universes can be measured, so I’m more inclined to take that veiw; but then we have to find some evidence of those universes within this one. A scientists can only suppose that there is an infinite of something, because it convienently fits the data, but that doesn’t mean that its the right idea. There is no good reason to think that this universe has come from and infinite of something.
Click to expand...
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem states that in a space time with average net expansion, there must be an initial singularity. It is mentioned in the link that I have provided.
 
ribozyme said:
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem states that in a space time with average net expansion, there must be an initial singularity. It is mentioned in the link that I have provided.
Click to expand...
The nature of space-time is incredibly fascinating. It has little to do with plumbing the depths of God’s “mind” though. He has His being outside of anything we can measure or extrapolate mathematically. We speak of beginnings and ends. He transcends all that.

Chasing things like an initial singularity is necessary because we are wired that way. But it is an endless rabbit hole. We will find that fundamental particles are not fundamental at all. Everything will have its own constituents that get smaller and smaller on their way to the infinity of the very small. We can decipher more and more cool stuff on the particle continuum, but we aren’t really any closer to the infinity that continuum represents.
 
If I make a decision that will end me up in Heaven in one universe, but in another multiverse I make the opposite decision that will end me up in Hell, then which one will God use to judge me?
 
PatThePoet said:
Only for those scientifically learned fellows:

Why is the Multi-Universe argument called a THEORY when the idea of a deity called mere HYPOTHESIS?

thanks
Click to expand...
It is my PERSONAL belief that heaven, hell, and puragatory all three diferent universes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top