Why believe in the Multiverse Instead of God?

Many scientists have come to believe that our universe is only one of possibly billions of universes--some of which operate according to laws which are utterly different from our own. At the extreme is physicist Alexander Vilenkin, whose theories of cosmic strings, eternal inflation, and quantum creation posit an infinite number of universes in which the laws of physics we take for granted are quite different, and virtually all combinations and permutations of the variables that shape our reality are worked out with different results. The multiverse appeals to atheists like Dawkins, because it provides a statistical explanation for the so-called "anthropic principle", or "fine-tuning" of the universe. Things seem finely tuned here, but the notion of a cosmic order is just a statistical artifact, because somewhere out there on planets Snafu and Fubar and countless others like them, things are really screwed up. We just happen to be lucky in living in one that isn't.

But the interesting thing about the multiverse is that there is no empirical evidence for it, nor is there likely to be. It's purely theoretical and untestable. In this month's Scientific American, cosmologist and mathematician George F.R. Ellis addresses the question "Does the Multiverse Really Exist, and concludes that the answers may lie beyond the domain of science. He says: "because theories involving a multiverse can explainalmost anything whatsoever, any observation can be accommodated by some mulitverse variant." Astrophysicist Bernard Haisch finds it paradoxical that hypothetical multiverses and hyperdimensions, which remain purely hypothetical, are accepted, while the notion of purpose in the universe is categorically rejected as a silly superstition. So what's a non-believer to do?

 

strange enough so, I still think and believe in ONE GOD.. no matter how many universes.

 

Well, firstly, there are many theories about multiverses. Some involve greater leaps of logic, others involve more detailed basis upon observation and theory. Tegmark's, Cyclic, M-theory (based off of String Theory), and also based on the Fine-Tuned Universe.

Secondly, there is a big difference between theory and faith.

Thirdly, hypothesis and theory doesn't necessarily need empirical basis; that's why it's theory and not laws or rules.

And finally, there is theory of multiverses in physics, philosophy, logic, and even religion (including Hinduism and Islam). The arguments for and against belief really depend on which form you are talking about, and it's not necessarily at ends with a belief in God.

Also; why single out multiverses? You might as well be asking why believe in fossil fuels, gravity, or global warming, or existentialism, or cynicism.

 

Why believe in either of them?

 

because I can see the SUN from here

 

I also heard that even if it were true then it would be impossible to prove in principal because the laws of the other universes' would be so different that using our laws to prove them would be pointless.

Just my 2 cents

 

That would really depend on which theory you go on. Some theories believe the multiverse is made up of universes with the same or very similar physical laws.

 

Can you see the suns in the other universes too? If so, I want what you're smoking :sifone:

 

I believe he is saying why accept it as a possibility when there is a pronounced lack of evidence, and in spite of the general scientific rigidity that leads people to openly mock other explanations that similarly lack evidence (God).

No scientific circles seriously speculate about our world from the perspective of creationism, so why do it with multiverses when both explanations might as well be equally plausible?

 

I understand this.
But what I am saying is that depending on which theory you are talking, there may be a pretty strong theoretical basis for a multiverse. Whereas, there isn't a very strong theoretical basis for a God; more of just "we got here somehow, and blahblah says.."

Theory is an important part of science, some of it can be tested, some of it can only be observed, some of it can only be deduced.

I ask again; why not apply the same question to gravity (which is a theory)?

Yes they do. There are scores and scores of Christian scientists. Some of them Creationists.

Creationism does not have to clash with science, and often doesn't.

 

The physical effects of what we call "gravity" are self evident. Things fall towards the ground. Theories of gravity attempt to explain why this happens, but the end result of what is happening is already established.

All this multiverse stuff is speculation about existence in general.
They are both theories but its like apples and oranges.
We know a force we call gravity exists in some form. We don't know that multiverses exist.

At best, "christian scientists" are pretty much obliged to separate their faith from their work. At worst, people openly conclude that they lack the capacity to handle their jobs because of the mental disease of their beliefs.
If a christian scientist were to ever conclude his work with "This occurs because of the influence of God" he'd be a laughing stock in his field, even if that is what he secretly believes.

Religion and science can be compatible in the mind of an individual, but the concepts of acceptance upon the basis of belief and faith are diametrically opposed to the virtues of the scientific method.

 

No, we observe know that things fall towards the surface of our planet/moon. Gravity is the theory that explains there must be some force pulling them in.

Observations built on observations make theories, that lead to the deduction of other theories (some testable some not), that lead to the deduction of the multiverse theory.
It's a much more complicated trail, but there is basis for all of it. (This is going by the string theory/M-theory basis, sometimes there are less theories, less observations, and more deductions)

But we are discussing the beliefs of human individuals; not the scientific method.
Christianity and science's compatibility depends very much on one's translation of the Bible. If you take the Bible as being largely allegorical and filtered by the historical writer's scientific beliefs, there doesn't have to be very much conflict at all.

 

But none of these theories have any empirical foundation. In the most limited form, the notion that there is something out there beyond the reach of our detection instruments is plausible, and it seems reasonable to assume that, in the absence of other evidence, it is more of the same. The more extravagent theories, however, like chaotic inflation, the most widely accepted of the multiverse theories, posits continual generation of new universes like bubbles in a bubble machine. Why is this more plausible than the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Of course there is. A scientific theory attempts to explain known facts by a network of plausible propostions that lead to testable, refutable hypotheses. Faith is "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1). The multiverse theory is not a scientific theory, and although it is not faith, it depends on faith.

But a scientific theory does necessarily need an empirical basis. We can speculate all we want about the existence of ghosts or the moon being made of green cheese, but a scientific theory is not speculation. As Dr. Ellis explains in the Scientific American article I mentioned in my initial post: "The various proofs (of multiverses) in effect propose that we should accept a theoretical explanation instead of inistead of observational testing. But such testing has, up until now, been the central requirement of the scientifc endeavor, and we abandon it at our peril."You're using the term "theory" in its popular sense. In science, saying that evolution is "only a theory" means that evolution is able to explain all the known facts about the development of living organisms and to generate testable, refutable hypotheses. The theory is one Cambrian rabbit away from being discredited, but so far it's holding up well.

Yes, but this is metaphysics, not science.

My reason for singling it out is that it's used so often by atheists to put down religious believers who think the universe around them is too orderly to be explained by the operation of blind, purposeless forces. I'm not saying that the multiverse theory is necessarily false or ridiculous. I'm saying that it is just a matter of preference.

 

Second verse same as the first...

 

Faith is believing something is true; theory is saying "this may be." Anyone who regards it as necessarily true, would be using faith, yes -- but I just want to be clear that this does not apply to all those who believe in a multiverse theory; but does to those who believe it with over-bearing, even unyielding conviction. Agreed?

I will concede to that. I have always had problems using the proper lingo, whether it be in science, programming, or philosophy.
Switch everything I said about 'theory' for 'proposed theory'. Just because there is no empirical basis, does not mean that there is not a strong theoretical basis.

Black holes are a perfect example. They started out as proposed theory, were worked on on and off for centuries, first proposed in the 18th century; Einstein ran into them while working on relativity and they've been fleshed out tons since.

We have even found black holes, or phenomena that seem like they could only be black holes, such as Cygnus X-1.

There is no true empirical or testable basis for these. Merely theory built upon theory, backed up by observation.
And they were proposed two full centuries before they were even observed, and we first pure abstractions of theory.

Depending on which theory we are talking it could be metaphysics, but it could also be theoretical abstractions or proposed theories.

Ah, I wouldn't know too much about that, carry on then

 

As for the Mulitverse theory, we are probably only 1/10 into the math, we may find it all comes around again and the mutliverses occur in measures of time so infinite small our perception is never going to notice.

Same with the expansion of the universe, we still dont know for sure if that expansion oscillates and the universe continually explodes / implodes on itself or if its set to expand and just fizzle out. And if it oscillates it will be in a time frame so vast again our perception may not be able to grasp it.

Pauli's exclusion principle (measuring a thing changes that thing itself) suggests that there are things we may never be able to work out


As for God, its just too vague a concept. For all we know his/her plan might have been just to set off the big bang, and "fuck it, lets see what happens". Billions of years later, seconds in Gods time, he/she is observing, "Ok, the stupid fuckers are sacrificing Virgins for me now".

The only thing we can know for sure is we dont know shit.


But Quantum Mechanics, Fuzzy Logic, Evolutionary Algorithms, some trippy shit.

Guaranteeing the outcome of one event impossible, but Calculating the sum probability of a close to infinite number of outcomes becomes more certain closer to infinity and that sum outcome can be predicted in negative time

 

Multiverse? Where does one end off and another begin?

The universe never burst my bubble.




God WHO?!

 

Agreed.I actually don't regard faith as necessarily believing something to be true. I think of faith as Luther did, as a "joyful bet" that something is true. I'm willing to take a chance on the belief without proof (otherwise it wouldn't be faith.) I wouldn't bet the farm on the multiverse.
[/QUOTE]

 

Well, the only thing from string theorists I can really sympathize with (which is also relevant to the Anthropic principal) is the plea that a models application is the only meaningful thing about it. Sounds kind of redundant but a lot of philosophies are.

M-theory id say is really more of a hypothesis. An attempt to rectify quantum mechanics and general relativity. Unfortunately, they've mathematically created 11 dimensions and a slew of other weird things to do so, and that's how science works right?

They've got quantum mechanics, which works. They've got general relativity, which works. You put the two together and you get M-theory with speculative bonuses like the multiverse, whose only similarity to an idea like god is being undefined.

Also from article lol "Astronomers are able to see out to a distance of about 42 billion light-years".

I know what its like to have a writing job.

 

You don't see 'multiverse believers' blowing up buildings because the religious don't agree with them do you? No because usually the people who believe in this theory are pretty humble and willing to accept the fact that they don't know everything. I'm a multiverse prospector so to speak. Been prospecting religions and theories for a few years now. A lot of them have the right 'idea' its just executed completely wrong. The hear-say is just taken way too far and that's all it is...hear-say. And read if you have the time to read a 1500 year old modified text about the non journey of a god who lives outside space and time with his son who refuses to show himself...

Humble before god....and just god...and only because we haven't figured out how to put a .45 in his mouth and speak our demands. Until then everything can be taken care of with semi automatic weapons, explosives, depleted uranium armor plating and a sure sense that were doing the right thing. Both for business, profit and....well that's it! If you don't like it, we will ram it down your gullet until you could water color an American flag with your vomit. Religion in itself will never work, as no one can agree on anything. As you can see with the current state of the government, those who do not agree not only get nothing done..they cause harm.

The multi verse theory is a much more promising endeavor spiritually and scientifically. Religion has already proven itself to be a failure, many times over.