David Klinghoffer writes: Stephen Meyer had a fascinating conversation with podcaster Andrew Klavan and his son Spencer Klavan. The topic: how the multiverse theory destroys not only science (as Meyer explains in Return of the God Hypothesis) but storytelling. The younger Klavan is Associate Editor at the Claremont Review of Books and an Oxford PhD in classics. Impressive Read More…
Multiverse
At Evolution News: The Multiverse: From Epicurus to Comic Books and Beyond
A profound difference between appealing to the multiverse and appealing to God, is that the historical and personal evidence for God throughout human history is multilayered and pervasive, whereas the evidence for the multiverse remains firmly at zero.
At Mind Matters News: Sabine Hossenfelder asks, is the multiverse science or religion?
Introducing her new book, Existential Physics, Hossenfelder makes a strong case that the multiverse is not right or wrong; it’s fun but not really science.
At Mind Matters News: Is ours one of a few working universes among countless flops?
No. For one thing, Meyer says, even though the multiverse attempts to explain fine tuning, it actually ends up presupposing unexplained prior sources of fine tuning.
At Big Think: Why the Multiverse is a “God-of-the-gaps” theory
Marcelo Gleiser writes: “The Multiverse has been proposed as an answer to the question, “Why does our Universe exist?”
Its proponents believe the Multiverse can explain our origins without having to reference God. But the Multiverse is in no way falsifiable, and the arguments in its support are nearly identical to the arguments for God.”
At Big Think: How the Multiverse could break the scientific method
Theoretical physicist Marcelo Gleiser raises the issue that the multiverse hypothesis suffers from the unscientific property of non-falsifiability. Embedded in his article is a solid acknowledgement of the fine-tuning of physical parameters for life to exist in our universe.
Rescuing the multiverse as a science concept… ?
Barnes on the multiverse: In the cycle of the scientific method, the multiverse is in an exploratory phase. We’ve got an idea that might explain a few things, if it was true. That makes it worthy of our attention, but it’s not quite science yet. We need to find evidence that is more direct, more decisive.
Steve Meyer on why a supposed multiverse is no answer to the extreme fine-tuning of our universe
Meyer on multiverse cosmologists: “The speculative cosmologies (such as inflationary cosmology and string theory) they propose for generating alternative universes invariably invoke mechanisms that themselves require fine-tuning, thus begging the question as to the origin of that prior fine-tuning.”
At Mind Matters News: Astrophysicists lock horns over whether multiverse must exist
Inflation is only one factor; other sources weigh in on issues around math, testability, reality-based thinking, and, inevitably, what God would do.
Can the Higgs boson give believers their multiverse? Shot and chaser
The obvious difficulty is that the multiverse drags in inconceivable complexity in order to solve comparatively common, minor issues of the sort that science always faces. People don’t think of that approach as a solution unless they have a vested philosophical and emotional interest in the idea.
Remember how endless cycles of universe were supposed to show that the universe has no real beginning?
While we are here, wouldn’t an infinite universe include the possibility that it doesn’t exist? Playing with infinity is playing a dangerous game.
Is Darwinism an “Empty Theory”?
At Evolution and News, there’s a link to a 2017 article tackling the problems of inflationary theory in the field of cosmology. What I find so interesting is the second to last paragraph in this six page article. Here’s how it reads: A common misconception is that experiments can be used to falsify a theory. Read More…
The Spiderman movie tackles the evidence (or not) for a multiverse
Luskin: Apparently under the Newspeak of materialism, proposing an infinite ensemble of universes that we can’t observe is the “simplest” explanation. Some authorities feel otherwise — noting that the multiverse is not a “simple” explanation at all.
Why (some) physicists think a multiverse exists
As stated by Ethan Siegel, it sounds like nonsense. But Siegel makes it sound like physics, which is certainly a feat.
At Mind Matters News: In an infinity of universes, is another “you” reading this article?
Maybe it is much easier for us to imagine an infinite number of ourselves than for nature to make it happen. Works the same with money…