Jump to content
Maniac Muslim Forums
Spider

The Multiverse Hypothesis

Recommended Posts

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

 

Well that was quite humble of you. :)

 

Since you are okay with it, let me delight in exposing your intellectual errors some more ...

 

Only a very small number of universes will have parameters within values which are suitable for life as we know it. This universe is one of those rare cases, but still a statistically random one.

 

Mathematically, the statement above does not fit with the assumption of infinite universes. If there were infinite universes, as the multiverse proponents contend, then words like "rare," "special," and "typical" would become meaningless because now there would have to infinite universes like ours and infinite ones that are not like ours. And the ratio of infinity to infinity is undefined, so there is no particular ratio to make a claim about whether this universe is rare or not.

 

The argument that there are infinite universes is used by multiverse proponents as a rationale to explain why this universe, in the scope of the multiverse, was bound to happen. But again, the argument itself is logically flawed for two reasons (1) actual infinity can never be attained and (2) even from a mathematical perspective, the idea of infinite universes makes concepts such as "rare" and "typical" completely unprovable, meaningless, and irrelevant.

 

I'm predicting that you'll respond to this with a trollish remark once again because you can't actually refute these points. But, I'm waiting in anticipation to see if I'm right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your intelligence = x

my intelligence = y

 

|x-y| > epsilon; where epsilon denotes some threshold which cannot be traversed.

 

 

 

 

Well that was quite humble of you. :)

Since you are okay with it, let me delight in exposing your intellectual errors some more ...

 

 

Mathematically, the statement above does not fit with the assumption of infinite universes. If there were infinite universes, as the multiverse proponents contend, then words like "rare," "special," and "typical" would become meaningless because now there would have to infinite universes like ours and infinite ones that are not like ours. And the ratio of infinity to infinity is undefined, so there is no particular ratio to make a claim about whether this universe is rare or not.

 

wow, such brilliance! you made the standard mathematical definition of probability obsolete! Can't you like write to these useless math professors in universities worldwide?

 

a9bd9d0a469fec8104c2ad7bd7f912d6.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequentist_probability#Definition

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wow, such brilliance! you made the standard mathematical definition of probability obsolete! Can't you like write to these useless math professors in universities worldwide?

 

a9bd9d0a469fec8104c2ad7bd7f912d6.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequentist_probability#Definition

 

Nice try, but unfortunately the frequentist interpretation still doesn't justify anything that you said, because the interpretation can be applied only when discussing well-defined experiments, where an experiment in probability theory is "any procedure that can be infinitely repeated and has a well-defined set of possible outcomes, known as the sample space."

 

But when we're talking about a multiverse containing supposedly infinite universes, there is obviously no well-defined set of possible outcomes because there are infinite possibilities. There would also have to be infinite universes like ours, and infinite universes that are not like ours, and as I said before, the ratio of infinity to infinity is undefined. In that situation, there is no way to determine the "rareness" or "typicality" of our universe using probability theory. And so my argument still stands unrefuted. You posting complicated math symbols in this thread doesn't convince me that you know a lot.

 

And in case you tell me to provide something from a proper academic paper, here's one, which you ignored when I posted this earlier:

 

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try, but unfortunately the frequentist interpretation still doesn't justify anything that you said, because the interpretation can be applied only when discussing well-defined experiments, where an experiment in probability theory is "any procedure that can be infinitely repeated and has a well-defined set of possible outcomes, known as the sample space."

 

But when we're talking about a multiverse containing supposedly infinite universes, there is obviously no well-defined set of possible outcomes because there are infinite possibilities. There would also have to be infinite universes like ours, and infinite universes that are not like ours, and as I said before, the ratio of infinity to infinity is undefined. In that situation, there is no way to determine the "rareness" or "typicality" of our universe using probability theory. And so my argument still stands unrefuted. You posting complicated math symbols in this thread doesn't convince me that you know a lot.

 

And in case you tell me to provide something from a proper academic paper, here's one, which you ignored when I posted this earlier:

 

"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

 

wow you keeps on dazzling me. on one hand you insist notions such as 'rare' and 'special' doesn't make sense in the scheme of multiverse. Then you quote a paper which builds entirely on these notions in the context of multiverse to criticize one minor philosophical outlook of the multi-verse. The paper doesn't even reject multiverse.

Or maybe I completely misunderstood (as usual) the paper. Why don't you explain the true meaning of that line you quote (out of a 14 paper article)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice try, but unfortunately the frequentist interpretation still doesn't justify anything that you said, because the interpretation can be applied only when discussing well-defined experiments, where an experiment in probability theory is "any procedure that can be infinitely repeated and has a well-defined set of possible outcomes, known as the sample space."

ps> But I am not saying anything. I am just saying you made the definition of probability obsolete with that statement you made:

 

 

And the ratio of infinity to infinity is undefined, so there is no particular ratio to make a claim about whether this universe is rare or not.

 

did your own brilliance surpass you for a moment there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your intelligence = x

my intelligence = y

 

|x-y| > epsilon; where epsilon denotes some threshold which cannot be traversed.

 

 

whos the one with infinite intelligence then

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

idk why there has to be infinite universes like ours. can't you have an infinite amount of variations

 

There needn't be infinite universes like ours nor infinite universes at all. multiverse at its basic form only needs large number of universes to explain fine tuning. Other motivations for multiverse such as string theoretical considerations, can bump that number to infinity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Level_II:_Universes_with_different_physical_constants

(we are talking about universes with different physical constants in this thread )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ps> But I am not saying anything. I am just saying you made the definition of probability obsolete with that statement you made:

 

My statement was:

 

"And the ratio of infinity to infinity is undefined, so there is no particular ratio to make a claim about whether this universe is rare or not."

 

Now let's see what a real scientist (Lee Smolin) has to say about this:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530040.200-you-think-theres-a-multiverse-get-real

 

COSMOLOGY is in crisis. Recent experiments have given us an increasingly precise narrative of the history of our universe, but attempts to interpret the data have led to a picture of a "preposterous universe" that eludes explanation in the terms familiar to scientists.

 

Everything we know suggests that the universe is unusual. It is flatter, smoother, larger and emptier than a "typical" universe predicted by the known laws of physics. If we reached into a hat filled with pieces of paper, each with the specifications of a possible universe written on it, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would get a universe anything like ours in one pick – or even a billion.

 

The challenge that cosmologists face is to make sense of this specialness. One approach to this question is inflation – the hypothesis that the early universe went through a phase of exponentially fast expansion. At first, inflation seemed to do the trick. A simple version of the idea gave correct predictions for the spectrum of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background.

 

But a closer look shows that we have just moved the problem further back in time. To make inflation happen at all requires us to fine-tune the initial conditions of the universe. And unless inflation is highly tuned and constrained, it leads to a runaway process of universe creation. As a result, some cosmologists suggest that there is not one universe, but an infinite number, with a huge variety of properties: the multiverse. There are an infinite number of universes in the collection that are like our universe and an infinite number that are not. But the ratio of infinity to infinity is undefined, and can be made into anything the theorist wants. Thus the multiverse theory has difficulty making any firm predictions and threatens to take us out of the realm of science.

 

These other universes are unobservable and because chance dictates the random distribution of properties across universes, positing the existence of a multiverse does not let us deduce anything about our universe beyond what we already know. As attractive as the idea may seem, it is basically a sleight of hand, which converts an explanatory failure into an apparent explanatory success. The success is empty because anything that might be observed about our universe could be explained as something that must, by chance, happen somewhere in the multiverse.

 

 

Now let's zoom down into the important part:

 

But a closer look shows that we have just moved the problem further back in time. To make inflation happen at all requires us to fine-tune the initial conditions of the universe. And unless inflation is highly tuned and constrained, it leads to a runaway process of universe creation. As a result, some cosmologists suggest that there is not one universe, but an infinite number, with a huge variety of properties: the multiverse. There are an infinite number of universes in the collection that are like our universe and an infinite number that are not. But the ratio of infinity to infinity is undefined, and can be made into anything the theorist wants. Thus the multiverse theory has difficulty making any firm predictions and threatens to take us out of the realm of science.

 

So, the question is, do you have any logical argument to refute that statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow you keeps on dazzling me. on one hand you insist notions such as 'rare' and 'special' doesn't make sense in the scheme of multiverse. Then you quote a paper which builds entirely on these notions in the context of multiverse to criticize one minor philosophical outlook of the multi-verse.

 

I don't think it's a minor philosophical outlook, but rather a major one, or perhaps a central one, because you yourself said that the whole motivation of the multiverse is to get rid of the "special" status of this universe (thereby making it "typical"). And that is exactly the point that the paper argues against, by saying that there is no good reason to think that this universe is typical even if we assume that the multiverse hypothesis is true. So, the paper is not criticizing a minor philosophical outlook of the multiverse. It's criticizing a major one.

 

The paper doesn't even reject multiverse.

 

I know it doesn't, but It lends credence to my argument that in a multiverse that constitutes infinite universes, there is no good reason to assert that our universe is typical nor special.

 

Or maybe I completely misunderstood (as usual) the paper. Why don't you explain the true meaning of that line you quote (out of a 14 paper article)?

 

The lines are pretty much self-explanatory. The point is that, in the final analysis, there is no scheme or model in cosmology that justifies typicality of our universe within the multiverse domain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

multiverse at its basic form only needs large number of universes to explain fine tuning.

 

Then you should take back your statement that this fine-tuned universe was "bound to happen" and that "luck doesn't play in here."

 

If you still say that this universe was bound to happen, given a large number of universes, then that number has to be sufficiently large enough as to make a universe like this bound to occur. But what could that sufficiently large enough number be, approximately? Or at what point can we draw a line between "This universe was highly probable" and "This universe was bound to occur"?

 

To put it differently, a multiverse containing an X number of universes (X being an extremely large but non-infinite value) has either of the following implications about the probability of our own universe:

 

1. This universe was impossible to occur.

2. This universe was probable but very unlikely to occur.

3. This universe was moderately probable.

4. This universe was highly probable but not bound to occur.

5. This universe was bound to occur.

 

if you say that # 5 is the correct one (which you did), then what makes you think that the X number of universes necessitates # 5 to be true? What's wrong with # 4?

 

I know you can't answer these questions because as long as X is non-infinite (which it has to be), there is no way to justify that # 5 is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haku was speaking in relation the parameters (physical constants) present in our universe. If these can be varied at will, we can make other possibilities. So in the scope of these specific parameters, luck doesn't play in here because every possibility already exists (according to the theory)

 

 

Now, reading your first post, I think you mean to say that there must be a creator because it seems very fortunate that we have these parameters at all. What if there were different parameters which had different effects, would any life be able to occur in that case. Isn't it fortunate that these parameters exist at all - ie there must be a creator. I can't speculate on this, or if there is a good explanation for this, but it would be interesting to hear a response.

 

At least this is my interpretation of the argument. Haku is speaking in scope of the specific parameters of our world. I don't know if there is a limit on varying the parameters either, if there is not, then there can be infinite possibilities. But then wouldn't there be infinite variations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also spider an example of why infinite amount of possibilities isn't always a death sentence (idk of the relevance here)

 

Pick a number between 1 and infinity. Now, there is an infinite amount of answers, and an infinite amount of different answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haku was speaking in relation the parameters (physical constants) present in our universe. If these can be varied at will, we can make other possibilities. So in the scope of these specific parameters, luck doesn't play in here because every possibility already exists (according to the theory)

 

The value of the parameters exist on a number line, so they can range to infinity. And that means that there has to exist infinite variations.

 

And infinite variations would require infinite universes, which is physically impossible.

 

Now, reading your first post, I think you mean to say that there must be a creator because it seems very fortunate that we have these parameters at all.

 

I was mainly explaining why the multiverse hypothesis doesn't solve the fine-tuning problem. But yes, it does seem very fortunate and remarkable that we have such parameters in the first place.

 

What if there were different parameters which had different effects, would any life be able to occur in that case.

 

It's possible, but extremely unlikely, given the highly sensitive nature of the parameters. Changing one of the parameters even by a small fraction would result in a universe that is unable to support intelligent life. And there are 30 such fine-tuned parameters. As one astronomer, Luke Barnes, states in a highly technical review of the scientific literature on the fine-tuning problem: "We conclude that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life. Of all the ways that the laws of nature, constants of physics and initial conditions of the universe could have been, only a very small subset permits the existence of intelligent life."

 

Pick a number between 1 and infinity. Now, there is an infinite amount of answers, and an infinite amount of different answers.

 

But all the answers exist on a mathematical realm, not on the level of physical reality.

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


×