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.
Multiverse
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…
At Mind Matters News: Multiverse cosmology is not a good argument against God
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.
Multiverse theory makes science obsolete
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.
At Mind Matters News: Why just anything can’t happen given an infinite sum of universes
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.
Ethan Siegel: The multiverse (and another you) are “all but inevitable”
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.
Molecular geneticist asks: “Does the existence of a multiverse hold the key for why nature’s laws seem so simple?”
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.