Multiverse theory

[Bluegoat]

And until they do, it’s at best pseudoscience…

Would you say the same about ideas that are now accepted as good science that also originated in the minds of theoretical physicists as mathematical models of some kind, and were not able to be tested for some time, and often were not taken seriously - labeled as pseudo-science?

 

[Ahimsa]

To limit the choices to either an infinite multiverse, or a one-time created universe, is to replicate the whole ‘atheistic evolution or 6-day creationism’ false dichotomy.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Would you say the same about ideas that are now accepted as good science that also originated in the minds of theoretical physicists as mathematical models of some kind, and were not able to be tested for some time, and often were not taken seriously - labeled as pseudo-science?

I would say that multiverse theories are extraordinary claims that are backed up by an extraordinary lack of evidence.

There’s a huge difference between a theory that is unable to be tested because of technical difficulties and one that is theoretically impossible to test.

 

[jpbathon]

I’m no mathematican, but it does seem to check out mathmatically as I<3Aquinas pointed out in the post above this one.

But how is it able to check out mathematically and not logically? Math and logic seem close, so they should both be correct on things like this, shouldn’t they?

Just my thoughts.

The problem lies in the fact that the mathematics is used to prove the logic. Since the logic is faulty, the mathematics in reality can not prove anything because it is based on something incorrectly defined and incoherent.

 

[jpbathon]

I found this article that supposedly debunks (or at least rebuts) the multiverse theory:

oneinjesus.info/2008/10/why-the-multiverse-theory-is-wrong/

If one does not know what the multiverse theory is, it is explained in the article with a link to wikipedia (in blue hyperlink named “multiverse theories”. It’s in the second paragraph).

I don’t quite see how it rebuts the theory, but what do you guys think? Is this a plausible rebuttal?

The mathematics work, but the basis for the mathematics is off. “If you have literally infinite chances to try any unlikely thing, it will happen,” is an incorrect statement, since each chance has no effect whatsoever on any other chance, it is entirely likely that the unlikely chance will never happen. A correct statement would have been, “If you have literally infinite chances to try an unlikely thing, it is probable for it to happen.”

Specifically within the parameters set by the problem, the math checks out. But the parameters were made by an illogical assumption, ergo they are basically useless.

As I understood it, multiverse seeks to prove that a universe exists for every possible outcome of every situation. This number is enormous and beyond possible conception, but not infinite, since there MUST be an enormous yet finite number of possible outcomes to a given situation. So I understood the problem not to be whether multiverse spirals out of control in infinity, but whether or not its a bedtime story with little proof other than manipulated mathematics…

 

[jpbathon]

If there’s no evidence then it is not even a theory. At the moment, the multiverse hypothesis is not even wrong.

True. It cannot be proved wrong, and cannot be experimentally verified, making it manufactured philosophy.