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.
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…
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.
As stated by Ethan Siegel, it sounds like nonsense. But Siegel makes it sound like physics, which is certainly a feat.
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…
God could have created countless universes on various principles for a variety of reasons. The key argument against the multiverse is that there is no evidence for it; it takes us outside the realm of observable science — a choice with consequences.
Even Ockham’s Razor can’t mow down an infinite expanse of nonsense. Steve Meyer, author of The Return of the God Hypothesis, offers a summary of the problems.
Marks: It can be shown mathematically that the infinite does not exist in reality, only in our minds. Thus an infinite number of universes cannot exist.
Essentially, Siegel, the person who has Big Problems with something as widely accepted as the Big Bang, is quite prepared to accept all this far out stuff. That is where the naturalist project is just now.
Johnjoe McFadden’s latest book is Life Is Simple (2021), in which he proposes that universes evolve in a Darwinian process, which “solves” the fine-tuning “problem”. One difference that we might note between this thesis and the sort of thing we read in biology journals is that there is evidence for the existence of countless life forms, whether or not their journey through time is explained by Darwinism. There is no evidence of any universe other than our own.
It’s not just theists who have problems with the multiverse. Sabine Hossenfelder explains her reservations.
This is the kind of thing she said: What about Avi Loeb’s claim that the interstellar object `Oumuamua was alien technology? Loeb has justified his speculation by pointing towards scientists who ponder multiverses and extra dimensions. He seems to think his argument is similar. But Loeb’s argument isn’t degenerative science. It’s just bad science. He jumped to conclusions from incomplete data.
Brian Keating: The concept of the Multiverse is an old one, one that has been approached primarily as a matter of metaphysics or philosophy. But is it scientific? And, if it is scientific, why do so many of its most ardent supporters describe their ‘faith’ in the Multiverse?
Horgan: First, science is in a slump, for reasons both internal and external. Science is ill-served when prominent thinkers tout ideas that can never be tested and hence are, sorry, unscientific. Moreover, at a time when our world, the real world, faces serious problems, dwelling on multiverses strikes me as escapism—akin to billionaires fantasizing about colonizing Mars.
But the multiverse isn’t really about evidence or falsifiability. The theory is held in defiance of the demand for evidence and believed in such a way as to make falsifiability sound unCool. As Ball perceptively notes, “Even though most physicists dismiss or even deride it, it is often eagerly embraced by physics popularizers and their audiences.” Perhaps it is best described as a lifestyle choice.