Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

How Sure Are We That There Is A Multiverse?


SerenelyBlue

Recommended Posts

I have read that our universe has the special qualities that allows for success. If there was not a god involved in the making of the universe it makes sense that there are previous universes. That there are cycles and only in time our universe appeared. It seems to be the most logical explanation.

How sure are we that there are multiple universes out there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are not sure at all. Some scientists seriously believe in it. Some have claimed that some observations support it. It also fits well with the many-worlds view of quantum mechanics. Other theorists are less enthusiastic.

 

Stephen Hawking likes it. Sean Carrol likes it. BAA likes it. A number of mainstream theorists support it. Most versions of it are compatible with one or more versions of the BB model.

 

 It can't be disproved so I expect it will stay around for awhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like it too. I want to convert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read that our universe has the special qualities that allows for success. If there was not a god involved in the making of the universe it makes sense that there are previous universes. That there are cycles and only in time our universe appeared. It seems to be the most logical explanation.

How sure are we that there are multiple universes out there?

 

 

 

A few thoughts:

 

1)  The so-called "fine tuning argument" (FTA) is logically valid but it is not logically sound.  Some of the argument's premises are mere speculation, not empirical facts.  For example, we do not know that the value for the cosmological constant can be different than it is.  The FTA argument assumes it can differ.  As another example, we don't know whether sentient life of some form or another (not carbon-based life) would form in universes with different fundamental physics.  The FTA assumes only carbon-based life can have sentience.  There are several other similar flaws in the FTA.  One thing you may wish to explore is WAP (weak anthropic principle).  Although it does not identify a logical flaw in the FTA, it nevertheless provides a short and sweet alternative.

 

2)  The "multi-universe claim" (MUC) is also speculative, although there is some math which supports it, thus it can be considered a scientific hypothesis of sorts.

 

3)  Using the MUC as an apologetic for the speculative FTA is not needed.  The simpler approach is to address the FTA all by itself to argue it is not logically sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is the fine tuning argument that bothers me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to resort to the god of the gaps argument. Argument from ignorance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is the fine tuning argument that bothers me.

 

 

I think there are two FTAs.  The first (which I referenced above) is a philosophical and scientific argument which concludes that life cannot exist if some of the fundamental constants have different values.  It ends there.  There is not theistic component to this version of the FTA.  The second FTA is the Theistic Fine Tuning Argument (TFTA), which adds a second conclusion to the end -- Therefore, GODDIDIT.  That separate conclusion has its own logical problems (e.g., special pleading, an assumption that carbon-based life is the purpose of the Universe, etc.).

 

I suspect that if you study the topic more, study the non-theistic FTA first, study next the TFTA, and avoid the creationist/intelligent design apologetics and irrationalities, you will become less bothered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to resort to the god of the gaps argument. Argument from ignorance.

 

It is the theists which employ the God of the Gaps Argument.  They are the ones that keep trying to hide their God(s) from rational inquiry.  The TFTA is a perfect example.  It reminds me of Carl Sagan's famous 'Dragon in the Garage' example:

 

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage" Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin[3]) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity! 

 

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon. 

 

"Where's the dragon?" you ask. 

 

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon." 

 

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints. 

 

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air." 

 

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire. 

 

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless." 

 

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible. 

 

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work. 

 

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

 

Source:  Sagan, Carl. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark Ballantine: New York, 1996.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One difference between the person claiming there's an invisible dragon in the garage and a person arguing for God is that the God apologist usually argues from some feature of our world to the claim that nothing could exist if a necessary being or cosmic designer or both did not exist.

 

So they insist that God, being transcendent, does not or does not have to satisfy the usual evidentiary demands that we make for phenomena in our world.

 

Then they go on to insist that science presupposes the assumptions of theism or something like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read that our universe has the special qualities that allows for success. If there was not a god involved in the making of the universe it makes sense that there are previous universes. That there are cycles and only in time our universe appeared. It seems to be the most logical explanation.

How sure are we that there are multiple universes out there?

 

Hi SB.

 

Yours is a good question, but the wording of it needs a little bit of tweaking.  When it comes to the various branches of the sciences, the only one where you can be sure (i.e., 100% certain) is math.  All of the others, like physics, geology, astronomy, biology, chemistry, etc. are different from math, because they never are never 100% certain about their data.  Math is a pure science that can give absolutely certain answers. Mathematicians can find proofs, which are the perfect solutions to mathematical problems.  But, when it comes to the geological or biological explanation of certain phenomena, such proofs are not possible.  Instead, these sciences only provide the best explanation of an observed phenomenon, according to the best available data.  So, there is always room for a better explanation if new and better data comes.  This often happens when new instruments and techniques are used.  Therefore, if a physicist or a chemist says that they are sure about a theory or an observation, this shouldn't be taken to mean that the issue is settled, proven and certain.

 

No, what's happening is that the scientists in question is saying that they are personally sure.

This is very different from saying that the theory or observation in question is absolutely sure -  as in, settled, proven and certain.  Apart from Mathematics, no branch of science deals with anything that is settled, proven or certain.  Which is why scientists use theories to explain what they observe.  If they were absolutely sure, then they wouldn't use theories - they would be dealing only in absolute certainties.  As Pantheory has pointed out, certain scientists are persuaded by some theories, but not by others.  So what is happening here is that they are expressing a personal preference and not stating an absolute certainty.

 

At the moment there are some lines of evidence that suggest we might live in a multiverse.

But there are also alternatives to multiversal theory that might fit the observed data just as well.  Right now we cannot say that there is a persuasive body of evidence that strongly suggests we live in a multiverse.  It's also possible that we will never acquire sufficient data to adequately answer the question. Since we can't be certain that there is a multiverse, I'd recommend that you revise your question from... "How sure are we that there is a multiverse?" ...to..."What is the evidence that there is a multiverse?" 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One difference between the person claiming there's an invisible dragon in the garage and a person arguing for God is that the God apologist usually argues from some feature of our world to the claim that nothing could exist if a necessary being or cosmic designer or both did not exist.

 

So they insist that God, being transcendent, does not or does not have to satisfy the usual evidentiary demands that we make for phenomena in our world.

 

Then they go on to insist that science presupposes the assumptions of theism or something like that.

 

 

 

That particular apologetic (necessary entity therefore Goddidit) flows off the philosophical question, "Why is there something instead of nothing?"  Theology, the bastard child of philosophy, then runs with that and makes up a brand new God of the Gaps assertion -- the necessary god.  Of course, the special pleading (the rules don't apply to God) and the, "Hey, look over there at my subservient sibling science!", is just icing on the cake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I don't want to resort to the god of the gaps argument. Argument from ignorance.

 

Well, this kind of goes back to arguments kids like to have in 1st, 2nd and 3rd grade about god. If god is everything, then... It's an easy conclusion if you want to think of an all-encompassing god.

 

I don't know. I still say universe. Multiverse sounds too trendy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is the fine tuning argument that bothers me.

 

No need to worry SB, the fine-tuning argument leads to precisely nowhere.

 

Life as we know it has evolved in this universe. It has been shaped all along by the physical constants that are present here. It is, therefore, in no way surprising that we find that life here and now is consistent with the laws of the universe that we find ourselves in. There is no other way that it could possibly be. By analogy, consider what happens if you put some water in a strangely shaped container, and allow it to freeze. If you then remove the ice, you will find that it matches the shape of the container perfectly. Does this mean it was designed to fit in the container? Obviously not. It was shaped by the container. But of course it is true that if the container had a different shape, you would be unable to fit the ice in it. But again, this isn't surprising at all, and there is no need to infer design because of it. It's just how things are. Similarly, its true that life as we know it wouldn't work in a universe with different physical constants. That's because it's been shaped by the constants that we have here. So the argument isn't exactly fallacious (except where the arguer goes on the conclude that goddidit), but it doesn't really get you anywhere either.

 

As for the question of the multiverse, it's an interesting hypothesis, but no one knows for sure. Science is full of such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is the fine tuning argument that bothers me.

its perpsective gone haywire.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.