Intelligent Design Multiverse

Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel tells us why a multiverse must exist

Spread the love

Inflation, you see:

Here’s the problem: if you mandate that you get enough inflation that our Universe can exist with the properties we see, then outside of the region where inflation ends, inflation will continue. If you ask, “what is the relative size of those regions,” you find that if you want the regions where inflation ends to be big enough to be consistent with observations, then the regions where it doesn’t end are exponentially larger, and the disparity gets worse as time goes on. Even if there are an infinite number of regions where inflation ends, there will be a larger infinity of regions where it persists. Moreover, the various regions where it ends — where hot Big Bangs occur — will all be causally disconnected, separated by more regions of inflating space.

Put simply, if each hot Big Bang occurs in a “bubble” Universe, then the bubbles simply don’t collide. What we wind up with is a larger and larger number of disconnected bubbles as time goes on, all separated by an eternally inflating space.

Ethan Siegel, “Why Do Physicists Say A Multiverse Has To Exist?” at Forbes (February 25, 2021)

That, he claims, is the multiverse. He qualifies,

This doesn’t mean that different Universes have different rules or laws or fundamental constants, or that all the possible quantum outcomes you can imagine occur in some other pocket of the multiverse. It doesn’t even mean that the multiverse is real, as this is a prediction we cannot verify, validate, or falsify. But if the theory of inflation is a good one, and the data says it is, a multiverse is all but inevitable.

Ethan Siegel, “Why Do Physicists Say A Multiverse Has To Exist?” at Forbes (February 25, 2021)

Our physics color commentator Rob Sheldon writes to offer in response,

The funny thing about this quote, is that “physics” never claimed to be an answer for everything. Even Aristotle, when he finished his “Physics”, wrote the next volume “MetaPhysics” about the stuff Physics couldn’t explain. For 1000 years, one obtained a “Doctor of Philosophy” or PhD and then studied the subtopic of “Natural History” which later became “Science”. The point is that Science or Physics was never understood historically as a overarching subject matter, but a tiny subset of Philosophy.

But as Einstein remarked, old physicists in their retirement think themselves philosophers, and pontificate on topics they have never studied. It is a failure of our educational system, that we have raised a generation of materialists with no appreciation of the long history of philosophy and theology that made the modern world possible.

Essentially, as physics shades into philosophy, the multiverse is a figment of the imaginations of those who need it. If cosmic inflation doesn’t give them a multiverse, not to worry, they will think up another theory that does. The wish is father to the thought.

Rob Sheldon is the author of Genesis: The Long Ascent and The Long Ascent, Volume II .

See also: The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

14 Replies to “Astrophysicist Ethan Siegel tells us why a multiverse must exist

  1. 1
    Concealed Citizen says:

    Hmm, a multiverse that has the properties of infinite energy generation and the ability to configure universes that have such fine-tuned parameters such that conscious, rational, sentient entities emerge from it that are capable of making pronouncements about the multiverse.

    That’s some multiverse!

    Sounds like a God for atheists.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dSua_PUyfM

  2. 2
    Battman says:

    Who put the material in Materialism, anyway? A multiverse requires an eternally existing omnipotent universe generator … aka God.

    Just how many finely-tuned universes are there? As the Beach Boys sang, “God Only Knows.”

  3. 3
    polistra says:

    Responding to Siegel is a waste of time. He’s a genuine Expert, which means he’s hyper-wrong about more than everything.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Ethan Siegel’s faith in the multiverse is found to be wanting.

    In inflation theory it is held that “(inflation cosmology) explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the Universe.”

    Inflation (cosmology)
    Excerpt: explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region, magnified to cosmic size, become the seeds for the growth of structure in the Universe.
    – per wikipedia

    Inflation theory was postulated to try to solve the The Monopole Problem, The Flatness Problem,
    and The Horizon Problem.

    Inflation: Status Update – Sabine Hossenfelder – March 08, 2019
    Excerpt: The currently most popular theory for the early universe is called “inflation”. According to inflation, the universe once underwent a phase in which volumes of space increased exponentially in time. This rapid expansion then stopped in an event called “reheating,” at which the particles of the standard model were produced. After this, particle physics continues the familiar way.
    Inflation was originally invented to solve several finetuning problems.,,,
    1. The Monopole Problem
    Guth invented inflation to solve the “monopole problem.” If the early universe underwent a phase-transition, for example because the symmetry of grand unification was broken – then topological defects, like monopoles, should have been produced abundantly. We do not, however, see any of them. Inflation dilutes the density of monopoles (and other worries) so that it’s unlikely we’ll ever encounter one.
    But a plausible explanation for why we don’t see any monopoles is that there aren’t any. We don’t know there is any grand symmetry that was broken in the early universe, or if there is, we don’t know when it was broken, or if the breaking produced any defects. Indeed, all searchers for evidence of grand symmetry – mostly via proton decay – turned out negative.,,,
    2. The Flatness Problem
    The flatness problem is a finetuning problem. The universe currently seems to be almost flat, or if it has curvature, then that curvature must be very small. The contribution of curvature to the dynamics of the universe however increases in relevance relative to that of matter. This means if the curvature density parameter is small today, it must have been even smaller in the past.,,,
    3. The Horizon Problem
    The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) has almost at the same temperature in all directions. Problem is, if you trace back the origin the background radiation without inflation, then you find that the radiation that reached us from different directions was never in causal contact with each other. Why then does it have the same temperature in all directions?,,,
    Ever since the results of the Planck in 2013 it hasn’t looked good for inflation. After the results appeared, Anna Ijjas, Paul Steinhardt, and Avi Loeb argued in a series of papers that the models of inflation which are compatible with the data themselves require finetuning, and therefore bring back the problem they were meant to solve. They popularized their argument in a 2017 article in Scientific American, provocatively titled “Pop Goes the Universe.”,,,
    http://backreaction.blogspot.c.....tific.html

    Yet the “Quantum fluctuations in the microscopic inflationary region” predict none of these properties that inflation theory was invented to supposedly solve.

    As Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, stated, “The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn’t end the way these simplistic calculations suggest,” he says. “Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn’t make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it’s physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace”

    Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation – 25 September 2014
    Excerpt: (Inflation) theory, the most widely held of cosmological ideas about the growth of our universe after the big bang, explains a number of mysteries, including why the universe is surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous,,,
    Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, says this is potentially a blow for the theory, but that it pales in significance with inflation’s other problems.
    Meet the multiverse
    Steinhardt says the idea that inflationary theory produces any observable predictions at all – even those potentially tested by BICEP2 – is based on a simplification of the theory that simply does not hold true.
    “The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn’t end the way these simplistic calculations suggest,” he says. “Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn’t make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it’s physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace
    Steinhardt says the point of inflation was to explain a remarkably simple universe. “So the last thing in the world you should be doing is introducing a multiverse of possibilities to explain such a simple thing,” he says. “I think it’s telling us in the clearest possible terms that we should be able to understand this and when we understand it it’s going to come in a model that is extremely simple and compelling. And we thought inflation was it – but it isn’t.”
    http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....CajrGl0y00

    And in 2017 Steinhardt and company further explained, “…inflation continues eternally, generating an infinite number of patches where inflation has ended, each creating a universe unto itself…(t)he worrisome implication is that the cosmological properties of each patch differ because of the inherent randomizing effect of quantum fluctuations…The result is what cosmologists call the multiverse. Because every patch can have any physically conceivable properties, the multiverse does not explain why our universe has the very special conditions that we observe—they are purely accidental features of our particular patch.”,,,
    the multimess does not predict the properties of our observable universe to be the likely outcome. A good scientific theory is supposed to explain why what we observe happens instead of something else. The multimess fails this fundamental test.”

    Pop Goes The Universe – Scientific American – January 2017 – Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt and Abraham Loeb
    Excerpt: “If anything, the Planck data disfavored the simplest inflation models and exacerbated long-standing foundational problems with the theory, providing new reasons to consider competing ideas about the origin and evolution of the universe… (i)n the years since, more precise data gathered by the Planck satellite and other instruments have made the case only stronger……The Planck satellite results—a combination of an unexpectedly small (few percent) deviation from perfect scale invariance in the pattern of hot and colds spots in the CMB and the failure to detect cosmic gravitational waves—are stunning. For the first time in more than 30 years, the simplest inflationary models, including those described in standard textbooks, are strongly disfavored by observations.”
    “Two improbable criteria have to be satisfied for inflation to start. First, shortly after the big bang, there has to be a patch of space where the quantum fluctuations of spacetime have died down and the space is well described by Einstein’s classical equations of general relativity; second, the patch of space must be flat enough and have a smooth enough distribution of energy that the inflation energy can grow to dominate all other forms of energy. Several theoretical estimates of the probability of finding a patch with these characteristics just after the big bang suggest that it is more difficult than finding a snowy mountain equipped with a ski lift and well-maintained ski slopes in the middle of a desert.”
    “More important, if it were easy to find a patch emerging from the big bang that is flat and smooth enough to start inflation, then inflation would not be needed in the first place. Recall that the entire motivation for introducing it was to explain how the visible universe came to have these properties; if starting inflation requires those same properties, with the only difference being that a smaller patch of space is needed, that is hardly progress.”
    “…inflation continues eternally, generating an infinite number of patches where inflation has ended, each creating a universe unto itself…(t)he worrisome implication is that the cosmological properties of each patch differ because of the inherent randomizing effect of quantum fluctuations…The result is what cosmologists call the multiverse. Because every patch can have any physically conceivable properties, the multiverse does not explain why our universe has the very special conditions that we observe—they are purely accidental features of our particular patch.”
    “We would like to suggest “multimess” as a more apt term to describe the unresolved outcome of eternal inflation, whether it consists of an infinite multitude of patches with randomly distributed properties or a quantum mess. From our perspective, it makes no difference which description is correct. Either way, the multimess does not predict the properties of our observable universe to be the likely outcome. A good scientific theory is supposed to explain why what we observe happens instead of something else. The multimess fails this fundamental test.”
    https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam3.pdf

    The failure of inflation theory, (via ‘quantum fluctuations’ generating an infinitude of universes with differing properties), to predict the specific macroscopic properties of our own observable universe is a fairly clear example that brings home Wolf and company’s extension of Godel’s incompleteness into quantum physics,

    As Wolf and company explained the implications of bringing Godel’s incompleteness into quantum physics, “even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,” and that “the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    – per physorg

    And whereas inflation theory has utterly failed to predict exactly why our universe has the specific macroscopic properties that it does, namely, why the universe is as flat as it is and why the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) has almost at the same temperature in all directions,,, Whereas inflation theory has utterly failed in that endeavor, on the other hand Christian Theism ‘predicted those exact macroscopic properties for our universe thousands of years before those macroscopic properties of our universe were even discovered by modern science.

    As to ‘the flatness problem’, the following quote gives us a clue as to just how bad the ‘flatness problem’ is for atheistic astrophysicists to try to ‘explain away’,

    “The Universe today is actually very close to the most unlikely state of all, absolute flatness. And that means it must have been born in an even flatter state, as Dicke and Peebles, two of the Princeton astronomers involved in the discovery of the 3 K background radiation, pointed out in 1979. Finding the Universe in a state of even approximate flatness today is even less likely than finding a perfectly sharpened pencil balancing on its point for millions of years, for, as Dicke and Peebles pointed out, any deviation of the Universe from flatness in the Big Bang would have grown, and grown markedly, as the Universe expanded and aged. Like the pencil balanced on its point and given the tiniest nudges, the Universe soon shifts away from perfect flatness.”
    – John Gribbin, In Search of the Big Bang

    In fact, “for it (the universe) to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing. As the following article states, “In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts.
    Which seems like an insane coincidence.”

    How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017
    Excerpt: With the most sensitive space-based telescopes they have available, astronomers are able to detect tiny variations in the temperature of this background radiation.
    And here’s the part that blows my mind every time I think about it. These tiny temperature variations correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe. A region that was a fraction of a degree warmer become a vast galaxy cluster, hundreds of millions of light-years across.
    The cosmic microwave background radiation just gives and gives, and when it comes to figuring out the topology of the universe, it has the answer we need. If the universe was curved in any way, these temperature variations would appear distorted compared to the actual size that we see these structures today.
    But they’re not. To best of its ability, ESA’s Planck space telescope, can’t detect any distortion at all. The universe is flat.,,,
    We say that the universe is flat, and this means that parallel lines will always remain parallel. 90-degree turns behave as true 90-degree turns, and everything makes sense.,,,
    Since the universe is flat now, it must have been flat in the past, when the universe was an incredibly dense singularity. And for it to maintain this level of flatness over 13.8 billion years of expansion, in kind of amazing.
    In fact, astronomers estimate that the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts.
    Which seems like an insane coincidence.
    – per physorg

    And whereas this ‘insane coincidence’ of 1 in 10^57 flatness was certainly not predicted by inflation theory, thousands of years before this exceptional flatness of the universe was discovered, the Bible, on the other hand, is on record as to ‘predicting’ this ‘insane coincidence’ of the universe being exceedingly flat:

    Job 38:4-5
    “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation? Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?

    Moreover, without some remarkable degree of exceptional, and stable, flatness for the universe, (as well as exceptional stability for all the other constants), Euclidean (3-Dimensional) geometry would not be applicable to our world. or to the universe at large, and this would make modern science, and engineering, for humans, for all practical purposes, all but impossible.

    Why We Need Cosmic Inflation
    By Paul Sutter, Astrophysicist | October 22, 2018
    Excerpt: As best as we can measure, the geometry of our universe appears to be perfectly, totally, ever-so-boringly flat. On large, cosmic scales, parallel lines stay parallel forever, interior angles of triangles add up to 180 degrees, and so on. All the rules of Euclidean geometry that you learned in high school apply.
    But there’s no reason for our universe to be flat. At large scales it could’ve had any old curvature it wanted. Our cosmos could’ve been shaped like a giant, multidimensional beach ball, or a horse-riding saddle. But, no, it picked flat.
    https://www.space.com/42202-why-we-need-cosmic-inflation.html

    Scientists Question Nature’s Fundamental Laws – Michael Schirber – 2006
    Excerpt: “There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,” says astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. “These are famous numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they are.”?The observed differences are small-roughly a few parts in a million-but the implications are huge (if they hold up): The laws of physics would have to be rewritten, not to mention we might need to make room for six more spatial dimensions than the three that we are used to.”,,,?The speed of light, for instance, might be measured one day with a ruler and a clock. If the next day the same measurement gave a different answer, no one could tell if the speed of light changed, the ruler length changed, or the clock ticking changed.
    http://www.space.com/2613-scie.....-laws.html

    The exceptional flatness of the universe that enables us to practice science in the first place is certainly very suggestive to the fact that the universe was specifically designed for intelligent creatures, such as ourselves.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Likewise, the Horizon Problem, i.e. the fact that the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) has almost the same temperature in all directions, a problem which inflation theory has also utterly failed to ‘explain away’ much less ‘predict’,,,

    ,,, as the following article explains, ““On the face of it, inflation is a totally bonkers idea – it replaces a coincidence with a completely nonsensical vision of what the early universe was like,”

    Space is all the same temperature. Coincidence?
    Distant patches of the universe should never have come into contact. So how come they’re all just as hot as each other? – 26 October 2016
    Excerpt: THE temperature of the cosmic microwave background – the radiation bathing all of space – is remarkably uniform. It varies by less than 0.001 degrees from a chilly 2.725 kelvin.
    But while that might seem natural enough, this consistency is a real puzzle. For two widely separated areas of the cosmos to reach thermal equilibrium, heat needs enough time to travel from one to the other. Even if this happens at the speed of light, the universe is just too young for this to have happened.
    Cosmologists try to explain this uniformity using the hypothesis known as inflation. It replaces the simple idea of a big bang with one in which there was also a moment of exponential expansion. This sudden, faster-than-light increase in the size of the universe allows it to have started off smaller than an atom, when it would have had plenty of time to equalise its temperature.
    “On the face of it, inflation is a totally bonkers idea – it replaces a coincidence with a completely nonsensical vision of what the early universe was like,” says Andrew Pontzen at University College London.
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230970-900-cosmic-coincidences-everythings-at-the-same-temperature/

    While inflation theory has utterly failed to explain exactly why the Cosmic Background radiation is “remarkably uniform” in all directions that we look, the Bible, on the other hand, thousands of years before it was discovered by modern science, predicted the universe to be “remarkably uniform” in all directions that we may look,

    Proverbs 8:26-27
    While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,??

    Job 26:10
    He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

    Thus, whereas cosmologist, (who try to explain why the universe is the way it is without any reference to God), have, at every turn, been stymied in their attempts to extrapolate the microscopic descriptions of quantum mechanics to explain the macroscopic structures of the universe, the Christian Theist, on the other hand, can take assurance in the fact that the Bible predicted these exact macroscopic structures of the universe thousands of years before these macroscopic structures of the universe were even discovered by modern science.

    I would call those some pretty amazing fulfilled scientific predictions for modern science coming from a book that many atheists falsely imagine to be nothing but a book of myths.

    Another thing that the ‘random quantum fluctuations’ of inflation does not predict is that the earth and solar system should have ‘privileged’ position in the universe.

    There are anomalies that are now found in the CMBR, (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation), data itself that ‘strangely’ line up with the earth,

    Here is an excellent clip from the documentary “The Principle” that explains, in an easy to understand manner, how these ‘anomalies’ that line up with the earth and solar system were found, via ‘averaging out’, in the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR data.

    Cosmic Microwave Background (CMBR) Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw

    Moreover besides the earth and solar system lining up with the anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation, Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:

    Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013?Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.?http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134?

    The ‘anomalies’ in the CMB data and quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe combine to reveal that the earth does indeed have a ‘privileged’ position in the universe.

    As the following article, (with a illustration) explains,

    “Of course to have an exact position, (or what we would call an ‘exact center’ in the universe), we would need an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, since that will give us three dimensions in Euclidean space. The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position. That is why we have continually said that the CMB puts Earth “at or near the center of the universe.”
    For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide. For example, it has been discovered that the anisotropies of extended quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North celestial pole (NCP)4.,,, Ashok K. Singal describes his shocking discovery in those terms:
    “What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.”
    – Ashok K. Singal4 “Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2103,..
    Signal states: “We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.”
    http://www.robertsungenis.com/.....20Wars.pdf

    Illustration of x,y, and z axis
    https://i.postimg.cc/L8G3CbXN/DOUBLE-AXIS.png

    Thus, contrary to the presumption of atheists, far from the temperature variations in the CMBR being a product of random quantum fluctuations as they presuppose, the temperature variations in the CMBR, (due to the ‘insane coincidence’ of the universe being ‘flat to 1 part within 10^57), correspond to the ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ and these ‘largest scale structures of the observable universe’ reveal “a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth”.

    In other words, the “tiny temperature variations” in the CMBR, and the large scale structures in the universe, both reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth and solar system from the creation of the universe itself. ,,, The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not just some random cosmic fluke as atheists had presupposed in their inflation model.

    Genesis 1: 1-3
    In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
    And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Another thing that inflation did not predict, or even pretend to predict, is the recent finding that life itself is found to exist at the ‘geometric mean’, and/or ‘the middle’, of all possible sizes in the universe.

    in the following video physicist Neil Turok states that ““So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”

    “So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”
    – Neil Turok as quoted at the 14:40 minute mark
    The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything – Neil Turok Public Lecture – video (12:00 minute mark, we live in the geometric mean, i.e. the middle, of the universe)
    https://youtu.be/f1x9lgX8GaE?t=715

    The following interactive graph, gives very similar ‘rough ballpark’ figures, of 10 ^27 and 10-35, to Dr. Turok’s figures.

    The Scale of the Universe
    https://htwins.net/scale2/

    Moreover, Dr. William Demski (and company), in the following graph, give a more precise figure of 8.8 x 10^26 M for the observable universe’s diameter, and 1.6 x 10^-35 for the Planck length which is the smallest length possible.

    Magnifying the Universe
    https://academicinfluence.com/ie/mtu/

    Dr. Dembski’s more precise interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as the size of a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center, and/or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. This is very interesting for the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions rather than directly in the exponential middle and/or the geometric mean. Needless to say, this empirical finding directly challenges, if not directly refutes, the assumption behind the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity.

    Thus in conclusion, contrary to the assumption in inflation theory that the universe, the earth, and life itself, are just the unforeseen products of some random quantum fluctuation at the beginning of the universe, the fact of the matter is that the scientific evidence itself gives us every indication that the universe, the earth, and life itself were all purposely intended from the very the creation of the universe.

    Although atheists often like to claim that they are being ‘scientific’, and anyone who dares believe in God is believing in a fairly tale, the fact of the matter is that the shoe is squarely on the other foot.

    Atheists, in their refusal to ever consider God as a viable explanation for why the universe is the way it is, have basically ended up believing in an infinitude of imaginary multiverse ‘fairy tales’ for which they have absolutely no scientific evidence.

    As the following article explains, in refusing to ever consider God as a viable explanation for anything, and in their appeal to a virtual infinity of other universes, atheists are inevitably forced into believing in such imaginary things as pink unicorns,

    Why Most Atheists (must) Believe in Pink Unicorns – May 2014
    Excerpt: Given an infinite amount of time, anything that is logically possible(11) will eventually happen. So, given an infinite number of universes being created in (presumably) an infinite amount of time, you are not only guaranteed to get your universe but every other possible universe. This means that every conceivable universe exists, from ones that consist of nothing but a giant black hole, to ones that are just like ours and where someone just like you is reading a blog post just like this, except it’s titled: “Why most atheists believe in blue unicorns.”
    By now I’m sure you know where I’m going with this, but I’ll say it anyway. Since we know that horses are possible, and that pink animals are possible, and that horned animals are possible, then there is no logical reason why pink unicorns are not possible entities. Ergo, if infinite universes exist, then pink unicorns must necessarily exist. For an atheist to appeal to multiverse theory to deny the need of a designer infers that he believes in that theory more than a theistically suggestive single universe. And to believe in the multiverse means that one is saddled with everything that goes with it, like pink unicorns. In fact, they not only believe in pink unicorns, but that someone just like them is riding on one at this very moment, and who believes that elephants, giraffes, and zebra are merely childish fairytales.
    Postscript
    While it may be amusing to imagine atheists riding pink unicorns, it should be noted that the belief in them does not logically invalidate atheism. There theoretically could be multiple universes and there theoretically could be pink unicorns. However, there is a more substantial problem for the atheist if he wants to believe in them and he wants to remain an atheist. Since, as I said, anything can happen in the realm of infinities, one of those possibilities is the production of a being of vast intelligence and power. Such a being would be as a god to those like us, and could perhaps breach the boundaries of the multiverse to, in fact, be a “god” to this universe. This being might even have the means to create its own universe and embody the very description of the God of Christianity (or any other religion that the atheist otherwise rejects). It seems the atheist, in affirming the multiverse in order to avoid the problem of fine-tuning, finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. The further irony is that somewhere, in the great wide world of infinities, the atheist’s doppelganger is going to war against an army of theists riding on the horns of a great pink beast known to his tribesman as “The Saddlehorn Dilemma.”
    https://pspruett.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/why-most-atheists-believe-in-pink-unicorns/

    Verse:

    2 Corinthians 10:5
    Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

  7. 7
    doubter says:

    Its proponents hope to avoid invoking a Creator or some intelligent Source by invoking inflation theory and the multiverse, but it seems to me that this has the primary flaw (and it is killing) that it totally fails to explain the primary prior existence of the very intricate system of the laws of quantum mechanics that is necessary for their scheme to unfold. They totally fail to explain the existence of this complex prior order to reality, leading logically to either a Creator or an always existing infinitely old reality. In their zealous atheist materialism these people are obviously poorly versed in metaphysics, philosophy and even in sheer logic.

  8. 8
    AaronS1978 says:

    Without invoking the creator the multi-verse is the best possible option

    Here’s the issue with it, it is Omni potent and Omni present

    It has the ability to infinitely generate universes and somehow each of these universe is don’t effect one another

    That’s not possible in a multi-verse and if it is possible then you might as well give up on it because you’ll never be able to find the proof you’re looking for if the universes can’t affect one another

    But if they can even to the slightest degree they will do so and they will do so infinitely

    So if there’s even the remotest chance that another universe can destroy a neighboring universe by accident, a

    .00000000000000000000000000000000001%

    Chance

    Then it will do so and it will do so infinitely until all the universes are gone and vice a versa

    If we are not getting impacted by any universe now then the likelihood of us being in a multi-verse is next to none

    Especially if this multi-verse invokes infinite potential and probability

  9. 9
    Querius says:

    Concealed Citzen @1,

    Sounds like a God for atheists.

    Well put!

    And the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics attempts to preserve Materialistic Determinism at the cost of spawning an essentially infinite number of parallel universes per second, one complete universe for every possible outcome of every wavefunction collapse in the universe.

    If this interpretation were introduced by deists, it would immediately be laughed out of every university. But deterministic materialism is so precious for some people, they simply cannot let go of it despite the overwhelming abundance of experimental evidence against it.

    So there we have it:

    The Multiverse Theory, the Many Worlds Interpretation, Spontaneous Generation/Abiogenesis, Darwinism, the Steady State Theory, Relativism, and Uniformitarianism. They’re all critical and just “musta” happened to avoid the obvious existence of God as creator.

    -Q

  10. 10
    Fasteddious says:

    I’m no cosmologist or theoretical physicist, but when I read about “inflation”, I wonder where does this inflation take place? Is it in the same 4D space-time continuum that we live in? Or is there some hyperspace from which these little 4 dimensional bubbles bud off. And when they bud off, how do they disconnect from the hyperspace? Is there some sort of “stem” that is severed? Where are these other “regions” and “bubbles” they speak of? In our 4D space beyond the borders, or “elsewhere” whatever that means?
    If inflation was in our 4D continuum, but just outside our visible universe, then as Aaron says, you’d expect our expanding bubble to run into something else sooner or later. Moreover, wouldn’t there be a “stem” of some sort where (and when) the bubble pinched off the inflation region? That question would also apply to any hyperspace “stem”. If inflation continued outside our bubble, why didn’t it then swamp our bubble in rapid expansion? If our 4D space-time is ours alone, what sort of “space-time” is inflation occurring in? And how did it connect to ours?
    Thus, if inflation is true, our universe must have a “centre” (the stem?) where it began. Moreover, the budding process; i.e. the point at which inflation stopped for our “bud”, must have been instantaneous, otherwise there would be some record of it in the big-bang echo radiation, some duration effects smeared across the cosmos.
    Finally, the notion that the fundamental physical constants of the universe could have been different and somehow “froze” when inflation stopped (for us) is mere speculation as far as I can tell. Since no one knows why the constants are what they are, then how can they assume they could easily have been otherwise?
    In short, it looks to me that the entire “multiverse” hypothesis is indeed just a handwaving, inconsistent “multi-mess” (as suggested above) posited to get around the fine tuning problem; replacing one set of addressable mysteries with a much larger and entirely hypothetical set of unknowns impossible to examine. If cosmologists don’t like the theist answer, they should stick with the “we don’t know” answer instead of latching on to this multiverse hand waving.

  11. 11
    Querius says:

    Basically, the Multiverse Hypothesis is similar to a giant cosmic turtle that lays eggs that hatch into universes.

    While the science, math, terminology, and storytelling is more sophisticated, the Multiverse Theory is still philosophically equivalent to the turtle analogy.

    -Q

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    Querius, you may appreciate this tidbit that I saved from one of your earlier posts,

    “The multiverse idea is exactly one of those examples, and is not fundamentally any different from the claim of a trans-dimensional cosmic tortoise laying eggs that become universes.”
    Intelligent Design blogger
    It’s turtles all the way down! 🙂
    gif – trans-dimensional cosmic turtle
    http://i.imgur.com/QTEpjry.gif
    The sarcasm continues:
    From now on in discussions of the origin of the Big Bang, I will insist that a better explanation is the cosmic turtle hypothesis—that a cosmic turtle, one among many, is the origin of the cosmic egg that started our universe.
    There are several reasons that the Cosmic Turtle (CT) hypothesis is superior to the multiverse alternative:
    (1) It disallows two or more Big Bangs from occurring in the same place and time
    (2) It disallows a Secondary Big Bang, SBB(tm), from occurring *within* our universe
    (3) It enables the integration of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution to be applied to the Cosmic Turtle
    (4) It promotes spiritual unity between Chinese, Indian, Native American, and scientific mythologies.
    And Terry Pratchett, of course.
    -Q
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-614150

  13. 13
    Querius says:

    Bornagain77 @12,

    Haha! I’d forgotten about that post. I’d hoped that sarcasm and irony might prevail over the profound scientific absurdity and ideological desperation in the Multiverse Theory.

    Even the atheistic theoretical physicist, Sabine Hossenfelder, mercilessly mocks the Multiverse Theory as a “religion” and not science. She provides her reasons here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dSua_PUyfM

    -Q

  14. 14
    Pearlman says:

    Good news for Ethan: There is NO ongoing cosmic expansion so he need not imagine a multi-verse, Ethan’s dilemma solved.
    reference Pearlman vs Hubble in SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model. Vol. II of the YeC Moshe Emes series for Torah and science alignment
    http://www.academia.edu/370669....._vs_Hubble

Leave a Reply