Jump to content
Maniac Muslim Forums
Spider

The Multiverse Hypothesis

Recommended Posts

At this point you probably need to study the cosmology. You seem to say alot of statements based on what you feel is correct without in depth knowledge of the subject.

 

Well, I pointed out several problems with the multiverse theory, one of them being the problem of infinity, and it's not simply what I "feel is correct" but also acknowledged by other scientists.

 

If you don't believe me, then read the following:

 

Many physicists loathe the multiverse hypothesis, deeming it a cop-out of infinite proportions. But as attempts to paint our universe as an inevitable, self-contained structure falter, the multiverse camp is growing.

 

The problem remains how to test the hypothesis. Proponents of the multiverse idea must show that, among the rare universes that support life, ours is statistically typical. The exact dose of vacuum energy, the precise mass of our underweight Higgs boson, and other anomalies must have high odds within the subset of habitable universes. If the properties of this universe still seem atypical even in the habitable subset, then the multiverse explanation fails.

 

But infinity sabotages statistical analysis. In an eternally inflating multiverse, where any bubble that can form does so infinitely many times, how do you measure “typical”?

 

Guth, a professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, resorts to freaks of nature to pose this “measure problem.” “In a single universe, cows born with two heads are rarer than cows born with one head,” he said. But in an infinitely branching multiverse, “there are an infinite number of one-headed cows and an infinite number of two-headed cows. What happens to the ratio?”

 

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20141103-in-a-multiverse-what-are-the-odds/

 

 

So, I'm not the only one who thinks that the multiverse theory is flawed. There are even eminent physicists who think the same, as discussed in the article above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

multiverse is a hypothesis, and like any other hypothesis in history of science, it has its proponents and opponents. You can choose to quote exclusively from opponents, but that doesn't subtract anything from the hypothesis. in the earlier posts, you tried to prove multiverse hypothesis to be false and failed. now posting opposite views from eminent scientists doesn't prove the hypothesis to be wrong either. Those scientists are merely expressing their feelings. What will decide the validity of the hypothesis would be not feelings towards cows, but experimentation. As for now, multiverse is as good as any other hypothesis for cosmogony.

 

and besides, if you want to learn how physicists are really talking about miltiverse, you need to read proper academic papers, not some silly journalistic take on the matter.

http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/ti:+multiverse/0/1/0/all/0/1?skip=0&query_id=a54c3708a50d3f56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in the earlier posts, you tried to prove multiverse hypothesis to be false and failed.

 

I wasn't trying to prove that the multiverse hypothesis itself is false. Rather, I tried to prove that it is reasonably flawed in the sense that it doesn't do anything to get rid of the fine-tuning problem.

 

The point of my OP was that whether the multiverse hypothesis is true or not, fine tuning still exists. I explained that in another post, and your response to that was simply a one-word statement: "false." Well, if you're that confident, then why didn't you provide any justification for that statement? Maybe you're just saying what you feel is correct? If not, then there has to be a reason why you said that.

 

Those scientists are merely expressing their feelings.

 

If you relegate those scientists' opinions as "merely expressing their feelings," as you did, then that indicates that you think that their arguments are less rational than the proponents of the hypothesis.

 

And that tells me that, for some reason, you are more in favor of the hypothesis than against it. Is that correct?

 

and besides, if you want to learn how physicists are really talking about miltiverse, you need to read proper academic papers, not some silly journalistic take on the matter.

http://arxiv.org/find/grp_physics/1/ti:+multiverse/0/1/0/all/0/1?skip=0&query_id=a54c3708a50d3f56

 

Yet one of those proper academic papers from the same link provides a further credence to my arguments here, and contrary to yours.

 

"As a result, it is not clear that typicality is justified, even if we conditionalize in accord with the ‘ideal reference class’ of Garriga and Vilenkin. Of course, we may be typical, but following this line of thinking, we do not have good reason to assert that we are." - http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.05308

 

You already know that the whole motivation of the multiverse hypothesis is to get rid of the "special" status of the universe. And in order to get rid of the "special" status of the universe, obviously there has to be a rationale to think that the universe is "typical." But as I just quoted above (*ahem* again, from an academic paper), even if we assume that the multiverse hypothesis is true, we still don't have a good reason to assert that our universe is statistically typical.

 

So, please do continue telling me why I'm wrong, because if anything this is only helping my arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet one of those proper academic papers from the same link provides a further credence to my arguments here, and contrary to yours.

 

"As a result, it is not clear that typicality is justified, even if we conditionalize in accord with the ‘ideal reference class’ of Garriga and Vilenkin. Of course, we may be typical, but following this line of thinking, we do not have good reason to assert that we are." - http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.05308

 

You already know that the whole motivation of the multiverse hypothesis is to get rid of the "special" status of the universe. And in order to get rid of the "special" status of the universe, obviously there has to be a rationale to think that the universe is "typical." But as I just quoted above (*ahem* again, from an academic paper), even if we assume that the multiverse hypothesis is true, we still don't have a good reason to assert that our universe is statistically typical.

 

So, please do continue telling me why I'm wrong, because if anything this is only helping my arguments.

 

It doesn't matter if its statistically typical. Only thing that matters is that is a possibility. Read hakus earlier post on pge 2 i believe.

 

 

Also Haku already mentioned that as it stands this theory is as good as anything else going around - ie its just a hypothesis, its probably wrong, but no one can say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if its statistically typical. Only thing that matters is that is a possibility. Read hakus earlier post on pge 2 i believe.

 

It it was a possibility, then logically this universe wouldn't be bound to happen. But Haku said that "in the scope of multiverse this universe was bound to happen" and that "luck doesn't play in here."

 

Also Haku already mentioned that as it stands this theory is as good as anything else going around - ie its just a hypothesis, its probably wrong, but no one can say.

 

Yes, I'm aware of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It it was a possibility, then logically this universe wouldn't be bound to happen. But Haku said that "in the scope of multiverse this universe was bound to happen" and that "luck doesn't play in here."

 

The Multiverse theory simply says that every possibility has occurred. By definition of the theory, this universe was bound to happen and luck doesnt play in here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Multiverse theory simply says that every possibility has occurred. By definition of the theory, this universe was bound to happen and luck doesnt play in here

 

But I mentioned in my earlier posts that there are infinite possibilities. And in that case there would have to be infinite universes, which is a quantity that can never be attained, and so it stands to reason that infinity can never occur in physical reality. As the famous mathematician David Hilbert said, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea."

 

I already discussed the problem of resorting to infinity, in the following posts:

http://maniacmuslim.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/31001-the-multiverse-theory/?p=1415926

http://maniacmuslim.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/31001-the-multiverse-theory/?p=1415935

http://maniacmuslim.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/31001-the-multiverse-theory/?p=1416059

 

And the definition of the theory is not as important as the explanatory power behind it, which is virtually zero with regards to answering the fine-tuning problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists are ready to promote even the wildest and most dubious explanations for the universe in order to keep the God hypothesis at bay, if nothing else works.

Yet many of them acknowledge that the hypothesis is untestable and takes us out of the realm of science.

 

Professor Paul Steinhardt says regarding the multiverse hypothesis: "I consider this approach to be extremely dangerous for two reasons. First, it relies on complex assumptions about physical conditions far beyond the range of conceivable observation so it is not scientifically verifiable. Secondly, I think it leads inevitably to a depressing end to science. What is the point of exploring further the randomly chosen physical properties in our tiny corner of the multiverse if most of the multiverse is so different? I think it is far too early to be so desperate. This is a dangerous idea that I am simply unwilling to contemplate."

 

If the multiverse theory requires us to believe that all possibilities will eventually occur, then we may as well say that even fairy tales are bound to be true, at least in one corner of the multiverse. We can make up any kind of story and that would be true also. So this is not even science anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats_just_your_opinion.jpg

 

btw, do you believe multiverse gets rid of the concept of God? Is that why you are opposing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, do you believe multiverse gets rid of the concept of God? Is that why you are opposing it?

 

No, it doesn't.

 

But you and I know that scientists often use this theory to explain away the mystifying fine-tuned properties of this universe, because the improbable nature of such a fine-tuning denotes the idea that there was some of sort of conscious "tuning" that had to be done instead of something that happened purely by chance. The universe is so highly fine-tuned for life that it's not reasonable to think of it as being the byproduct of some purposeless, accidental forces. For that reason, the concept of fine-tuning and the concept of a cosmic designer/fine-tuner (i.e. God) are interconnected.

 

And I've explained in this thread why positing a multiverse still doesn't get rid of the fine-tuning problem, so obviously the concept of a cosmic fine-tuner is not affected in any way, either.

 

In response to the meme:

"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others." - Douglas Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't.

 

But you and I know that scientists often use this theory to explain away the mystifying fine-tuned properties of this universe,

did you receive a secret memo of such an agenda?

 

For that reason, the concept of fine-tuning and the concept of a cosmic designer/fine-tuner (i.e. God) are interconnected.

so whats your personal reasons for the Shakespearean opposition towards multiverse?

 

And I've explained in this thread why positing a multiverse still doesn't get rid of the fine-tuning problem, so obviously the concept of a cosmic fine-tuner is not affected in any way, either.

you deserve harun yahya award of the year for that feat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did you receive a secret memo of such an agenda?

 

The agenda is already known, so it's not a secret agenda. You, too, said that the whole point of the multiverse theory was to get rid of the fine-tuning. In this post you wrote, "Contrary to what you say, multiverse doesn't need to be fine tuned. That was the whole point of multiverse to start with."

 

So, regarding the underlined sentence above, I'll ask you the same question: Did you receive a secret memo of such an agenda?

 

so whats your personal reasons for the Shakespearean opposition towards multiverse?

 

1, It does not solve the fine-tuning problem.

2. It takes us out of the realm of science because there is no way to predict what the other universes are like, even if they exist.

3. It posits the existence of infinite universes, which is physically impossible.

 

you deserve harun yahya award of the year for that feat.

 

And your sarcasm shows that you don't really have an intelligent response to my comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ no no i can't possibly hope to match your intelligence. and i am okay with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×