Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Multiverse

Has string theory really fallen this time?

Paul Sutter: "They argue that all possible configurations of compact dimensions are realized, each one with its own unique universe and set of physical laws, and we happen to live in this one because life would be impossible in most or all of the others. That’s not the strongest argument to come out of physics, but I’ll save a dissection of the idea for another day." Read More ›

At Evolution News: Meyer and Klavan: How the Multiverse Ruins Science…and Storytelling

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 guy. He wrote an essay there analyzing the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), of which “the multiverse has become the central governing concept.”  Klavan nails it in his essay: “In the infinite multiverse there’s a cure for every illness. A solution to every problem,” says the Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) in Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness. She’s exactly right, and that’s exactly the issue: two Read More ›

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. Read More ›

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. Read More ›

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." Read More ›

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. Read More ›

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. Read More ›

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." Read More ›

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. Read More ›

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. Read More ›

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. In practice, a failing theory gets increasingly immunized against experiment by attempts to patch it. The theory becomes more highly tuned and arcane to fit new observations until it reaches a state where its explanatory power diminishes to the point that it is no longer pursued. The explanatory power of a theory is measured by the set of possibilities it excludes. More immunization means less Read More ›