In “Does the Multiverse Really Exist?” (New Scientist, July 19, 2011), mathematician George F. R. Ellis warns that “Proof of parallel universes radically different from our own may still lie beyond the domain of science”:
In the past decade an extraordinary claim has captivated cosmologists: that the expanding universe we see around us is not the only one; that billions of other universes are out there, too. There is not one universe—there is a multiverse. In Scientific American articles and books such as Brian Greene’s latest, The Hidden Reality, leading scientists have spoken of a super-Copernican revolution. In this view, not only is our planet one among many, but even our entire universe is insignificant on the cosmic scale of things. It is just one of countless universes, each doing its own thing.
The trouble is, he says, such universes are unobservable, and “even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained.” If there really are “an infinite number of galaxies, an infinite number of planets and an infinite number of people with your name who are reading this article,” it makes the deep mysteries of nature too absurd to be inexplicable.
But why does Ellis assume that everyone is displeased with this state of affairs? The untestable multiverse is perfect for its true purpose: Getting around the fact that the only universe we know seems fine-tuned for life.
If the multiverse were testable, it could be falsified. Then what? It is a far more useful concept for the new atheist elite if it is comfortably beyond the reach of ever being demonstrated but yakked up incessantly enough to sell books, and eventually set education policy.
Also: Here Ellis observes that “Arguments for the multivese are mutually exclusive.”
Here claims for “proof” of a multiverse are dissected.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
UD News 2011:
L. Susskind 2005:
JDFL (& News):
A mathematically unique solution that forces our cosmos to be as it is, is by definition, fine tuned. Fine-tuning is easy to push up a level and miss that it has not gone away.
If instead we are looking at a cosmos bakery that manages to capture what looks like a locally very precisely tuned cosmos with a life-friendly operating point then the cosmos bakery is looking fine tuned to hunt for that “knee” or “island of function.” [Cf the footnote point 5 on Collins here.]
Last but not least, looking for a natural explanation of nature is not only the importation of a priori materialism, but when we are trying to explain the causal roots of nature on nature that is getting pretty close to causal absurdity: A causes A.
A commenter at Feser’s blog, Nathaniel, has captured this issue well:
In short, contingent beings are caused, necessary beings are not. The latter do not begin, nor can they end, they are eternal. Basic mathematical truths and the like are like that: 2 + 3 = 5 has always been true, it has no beginning nor end as a truth, and cannot be made non-true. (BTW, this is one root of why a great many theists have said that such truths eternally reside in the mind of him who is truth himself, God.)
The sounder cosmological claim, is that the wider system of nature is the necessary being that explains our sub-cosmos with a beginning, and that is one root of the multiverse claims.
GEM of TKI
Kairosf: “The sounder cosmological claim, is that the wider system of nature is the necessary being that explains our sub-cosmos with a beginning, and that is one root of the multiverse claims.”
The multi-verse talking points seem to sell well for rank and file atheists in their ideological yard sale to the rank and file populace. However, the physicists that develop these theories themselves seem to know better. When Brian Greene was asked [in a video posted on this site] “What makes the strings vibrate?” He replied, “If you mean, where does the energy come from? In other words, why is there something rather than nothing? … I do not know.”
The theoretical multi-verse simply shoves the ultimate question back a bit. Like tugging on the knot of a neck tie, it gives the materialist a few more inches to breathe.
@junkdnaforlife
Post #3
That video you referenced also displayed Prof. Gates commenting on his belief of the “cosmic error correction codes” did it not? Definitely a peculiar revelation, should it turn out to be true. Perhaps that is what allows the “laws of nature” (i.e. speed of light, gravitation, weak force, strong force, etc…) to continue eternally as a constant? One would assume that you would need to apply some sort of “check” against the outputs of those constants such that you could insure their fidelity to the required values. Sort of a “parity” check for the constants, if you will. To insure that those values do not become corrupted, and thus throw the dependent functionality “out of whack”.
As to the fine-tuning of the universal constants that have driven atheistic mathematicians, and physicists to such a state as to postulate, with absolutely no empirical warrant for doing so, infinite multi-verses,,,, ;
,,, it is interesting to take a closer look at the most ‘finely-tuned’ constant, which is the Cosmological Constant (Dark Energy). The Cosmological Constant (Dark Energy) is the constant that governs the expansion of space-time. And since space and time are to be treated as the same thing, per Einstein, the cosmological constant (Dark Energy), the finely tuned expansion of space, turns out to be the constant that actually makes time, as measured by our clocks, accurate for each clock measuring time in each point of 3D space.
In relation to the fine-tuning of time itself, by the cosmological constant, It is also interesting to point out exactly how Einstein got his ‘insight into eternity’ which opened the door for him to be able to elucidate special relativity;
Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight Into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ video
http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/
,,, it is also interesting to point out that Einstein, when he was shown his general relativity equation indicated a universe that was unstable, added a ‘steady’ cosmological constant (his self professed ‘greatest blunder’), to his equation to reflect a universe that was stable, instead of properly adding a ‘expanding’ cosmological constant.
Einstein and The Belgian Priest, George Lemaitre – The “Father” Of The Big Bang Theory – video
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4279662
,,, the interesting thing in Einstein adding a steady cosmological constant to his equation, instead of a expanding cosmological constant, is the fact that Einstein is the person who first realized that time and space are inextricably linked, thus it naturally follows that since time is ‘flowing’ into the future then space must be expanding, for if space was not ‘expanding’ but remains ‘static’, being that time and space are two sides of the same coin, then time also would remain ‘static’, i.e. time would not flow into the future if 4-D space did not expand equally everywhere.
ciphertext, Yes that was the video where Dr. Gates revealed he is finding error correcting code in the fabric of the cosmos. [I posted the quote somewhere]
For a zero-energy universe multiverse theory cannot be true. This is because energy being zero mass will also be zero due to mass-energy equivalence. Scientists have also shown that anything having mass will always occupy some space. So if anything fails to occupy any space, then it cannot have any mass. Our universe as a whole perhaps fails to occupy any space, and that is why it does not have any mass. But if multiverse theory is true, then our universe will occupy some space within the multiverse, and thus it will satisfy the condition for having mass. So in that case it cannot be without mass. But as the mass of our universe is zero, therefore multiverse theory cannot be true.
Radiation occupies space but it does not have any mass. So multiverse theory could have been true if our universe was some sort of pure radiation. Multiverse theory can also be true if total energy of our universe is not exactly zero.