Multiverse theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter coolduude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

coolduude

Guest
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?
 
It’s actually a sound rebuttal mathematically speaking.

Given an infinite amount of tries, everything with any probability of happening, will happen. But because you cannot figure the probability against infinity, you end up multiplying infinity on top of itself and you get infinity. Something that has a probably of happening once every six times (say, rolling a six on a six-sided die) has a probably of happening six times if you roll the die thirty six times. You cross multiply and divide 1/6 with X/36 where X is the amount of times it should statistically happen with thirty-six rolls of the die. You end up with X=6.

Let’s apply this to infinity.

1/6 * X/Infinity.

6X/Infinity

X=Infinity

Anything multiplied or divided by infinity equals infinity. So you should roll a six an infinite amount of times given an infinite amount of tries. This probably equals 1. Infinity/Infinity is analogous to 1/1, even though mathematically it equals infinity again, just as 1/1 equals 1.

So what the article is saying is that there should be an infinite number of universes exactly like ours, even though the statistical probability of only one occurring randomly is so close to zero that one cannot possibly fathom it graphically on a number line where 1 is the statistical probability of it having to happen no matter what, and zero being the statistical probability of it absolutely not happening no matter what. It is so close to zero that most people would consider it a moot point and reduce the probability of the universe randomly generating into what we have no as zero.

In short, the multiverse theory says that there should be an infinite amount of universes that are exactly like ours, all randomly generated, despite the mathematical probability against it.
The God theory says that there is one universe, no others, and it was created and finetuned by God. The mathematical probability supports this (at least better than the multiverse theory).
 
It’s actually a sound rebuttal mathematically speaking.

Given an infinite amount of tries, everything with any probability of happening, will happen.
That’s a fallacy.

There is no causal connection between the probability of a thing happening and repetitions.

I could flip a coin an infinite number of times and just get heads.

Also, in the article it talks about random figures. Random does not happen in reality. Either a thing is essentially, or accidentally ordered.

🤷
 
The fallacy is a philosophical fallacy, ie, there is just as much probability of it never happening.

But the rebuttal is a mathematical rebuttal and my explanation of it is mathematical. Mathematically speaking, anything with any probability of happening will happen given an infinite amount of tries. This is not a fallacy in relation to mathematics.
 
The fallacy is a philosophical fallacy, ie, there is just as much probability of it never happening.

But the rebuttal is a mathematical rebuttal and my explanation of it is mathematical. Mathematically speaking, anything with any probability of happening will happen given an infinite amount of tries. This is not a fallacy in relation to mathematics.
The article confuses convergence of probability with probability itself. It is not the case that, given an infinite set of success/failure trials, each with probability p<1 of success, that at least one of the trials must result in success. Now, it is the case that the probability of some trial resulting in success grows ever closer to 1 as trials continue towards infinity, but that is a very different kind of statement.
 
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. 🤷
 
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?
I suppose a rationalist/freethinker would need to ask the question, what is the evidence for Multiverses? If the answer is “none” then it is just another fairey tale for adults to enjoy.
 
His explanation of multi-verses and the reason they have been proposed doesn’t jive with what I have read about them. My understanding was that the theory is one possibility for solving certain purely mathematical problems which I couldn’t explain if I tried.

Of course there is no evidence it is just a theory. But many ideas later to be accepted in physics began as theories of this kind, predicted by the mathematics.
 
If there’s no evidence then it is not even a theory. At the moment, the multiverse hypothesis is not even wrong.
I’m guessing that by “not even wrong” you mean that it’s so far off the mark its beyond wrong?
 
I’m guessing that by “not even wrong” you mean that it’s so far off the mark its beyond wrong?
I mean it’s based on nothing. It’s totally impossible to even investigate whether it could be right or wrong.
 
I mean it’s based on nothing. It’s totally impossible to even investigate whether it could be right or wrong.
Interesting. By the admission of impossibility, you are indirectly implying that the multi-verse theory isn’t even a valid hypothesis, since it is not testable.
 
Interesting. By the admission of impossibility, you are indirectly implying that the multi-verse theory isn’t even a valid hypothesis, since it is not testable.
At the moment, I would say multiverse theories are more the provenance of philosophers than scientists.
 
Interesting. By the admission of impossibility, you are indirectly implying that the multi-verse theory isn’t even a valid hypothesis, since it is not testable.
Something that isn’t testable now could perhaps be in the future though, depending on the reasons involved. I don’t know what kind of evidence there could possibly be for this particular idea, but I suppose someone might think something up.
 
Something that isn’t testable now could perhaps be in the future though, depending on the reasons involved. I don’t know what kind of evidence there could possibly be for this particular idea, but I suppose someone might think something up.
And until they do, it’s at best pseudoscience…
 
Something that isn’t testable now could perhaps be in the future though, depending on the reasons involved. I don’t know what kind of evidence there could possibly be for this particular idea, but I suppose someone might think something up.
I think the multiverse hypothesis exists solely in mathematical speculation right now and it was basically intended to answer the question why does our universe have the physical laws that it does & not some other set of laws – the “anthropic principle” having long been used as evidence for a Creator.

Both sides should chill.
Any scientist who says, “Hey, there’s a multiverse so there’s no God!” is being an idiot.
Christians who preemptively deny the possibility of a multiverse just because atheist scientists like it should remember God can make as many cosmoi as He wants, no?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top