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…
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
Inflation is only one factor; other sources weigh in on issues around math, testability, reality-based thinking, and, inevitably, what God would do.
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.
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…