At Evolution News: The Multiverse: From Epicurus to Comic Books and Beyond

_{Eric Hedin

October 4, 2022

Fine tuning, Intelligent Design, Multiverse}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

On a new episode of ID the Future, Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Andrew McDiarmid explores the roots of the idea that our universe is just one of many universes, an idea stretching back to the ancient atomists and given new life in the modern era, first by physicist Hugh Everett. McDiarmid looks at how the idea percolated into comic books and from there into other areas of popular culture. He caps off the episode with a reading of a recent article about the multiverse hypothesis by Stephen Meyer, author of the bestseller, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe.

Meyer shows why some atheist scientists are attracted to the multiverse. As he explains, there is little if any good evidence for the idea, but atheists need it to explain away the fact that the laws and constants of the universe are exquisitely fined-tuned to allow for life. The fine-tuning smacks of intelligent design, and physicist Leonard Susskind has frankly remarked that the multiverse is needed to answer the arguments of design proponents. But as Meyer explains, not only does the multiverse hypothesis lack evidence, it doesn’t even remove the need for a fine-tuner, a point that the makers of recent comic book movies from Marvel and DC seem to grasp. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Evolution News

By definition, the “universe” is everything that exists in the physical realm. By definition, anything that might exist beyond our universe is “metaphysical.” By appealing to the metaphysical realm to explain fine-tuning or life itself, is akin to acknowledging God as the creator. 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.

Comments

AF/15 Epicurus is anathema with this crowd......chuckdarwin_{October 7, 2022
October
10
Oct
7
07
2022
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT}

To Seversky @8: Here's a well-researched reference for miracles: Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts, 2 Vols. By: Craig S. Keener Available on Amazon.Caspian_{October 6, 2022
October
10
Oct
6
06
2022
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

About a month or so ago, there was an OP here on Michael Behe and his conversation with a Catholic theologian. It took place on a Catholic site called The Journal of Absolute Truth. Here a link to the last comment on that thread https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/at-evolution-news-behe-debates-the-limits-of-darwinian-evolution/#comment-765366 I looked for more material about Behe on this site and saw the two authors that ran the site had substack accounts. So I signed up for emails from them. One came in yesterday about fine tuning and in it mentions the Multiverse. At the end of a long email from them, the site recommenced three books. They would be: Luke Barne’s "A Fortunate Universe," Robin Collins contribution in "The Blackwell Companion," and Michael Rota’s "Taking Pascal’s Wager." I just found out about them so know nothing of their content. Over time I will try to read/listen. Relevant to the Multiverse, a comment is
Moving on now to what I believe is the most interesting objection, which is the multiverse objection. In short, the most prominent naturalistic explanation for fine-tuning is the multiverse theory, which posits an enormously, perhaps infinitely, large number of universes (each resulting, say, from some universe generator), with the notion being that probably, if not inevitably, you wind up with a universe like ours. From there, we just happen to be the lucky ones.
There is more and I may post them when it is appropriate.jerry_{October 5, 2022
October
10
Oct
5
05
2022
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Why does the OP title mention Epicurus' and then not refer to him in the text? That's a shame. Several folks here would benefit from having a look at what has survived of Epicurus' philosophy.Alan Fox_{October 5, 2022
October
10
Oct
5
05
2022
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

Ba77 at 12, Yes. The desired reality of atheistic naturalists is "If there is evidence that this universe is fine tuned then there must be other universes and at least one or more are not fine tuned." You know, planets in random locations. That may or may not be orbiting a star. And a few "lucky" planets, out of billions, that just happened to be in the right place for the spontaneous appearance of life.relatd_{October 5, 2022
October
10
Oct
5
05
2022
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

I love how skeptics don't accept testimony but they are fine with testimony from corrupt scientists who falsify papers all the time (and the only method of evidence for much of the historical figures of antiquity). Not to mention...science cannot verify something that is immaterial or test something that has happened in the past. It can only make inference.zweston_{October 5, 2022
October
10
Oct
5
05
2022
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT}

Fasteddious: ""I am not sure why you were responding to my note @5." The various Multiverse conjectures have been used by Atheistic Naturalists to try to get around the evidence for Intelligent Design of this universe. I only wanted to show that the Level-! multiverse, like all the other multiverse conjectures, fails to provide any 'out' for the atheistic naturalists. And when considering the extreme 1 in 10^57 fine-tuning of the flatness of the universe, the reasoning behind the postulation of the Level-1 conjecture, i.e. the topology of the universe, ends up falling squarely within the camp of Intelligent Design.bornagain77_{October 5, 2022
October
10
Oct
5
05
2022
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

BA77 @ 6 & 7: I read through your reply and fail to see any "nuanced falsification" of my note or Tegmark's Level-1 Multiverse, unless you count absence of evidence as a form of falsification. As I wrote, "Given that our Universe is essentially flat, largely isotropic and somewhat homogeneous, it is reasonable to assume that the same conditions exist out past the “edges”, perhaps for a great many billion light years in any direction. " I did NOT suggest an infinity of universes, just that there is probably something beyond the edge of what we can see, which could be called "other universes" in the Level-1 sense. Thus, Tegmark's Level-1 infinity is NOT the same as my note. Your long argument is about flatness, which I fully accept and used first as part of my suggestion. I will take another look at what you wrote, but aside from details, it seems to be in agreement with my note. If someone believes that the Universe truly ends at or just beyond the edges visible to us, then that is also a hypothesis with zero evidence, and one that seems less likely than to assume the Universe continues beyond that edge, with largely similar conditions to what we see. How far such a "'multiverse" might continue is, of course, a matter of speculation. however, I cannot think that it would be infinite. Perhaps it fades away slowly after another few billion light-years? Only God knows. Of course, God could have ended space, time, matter, energy beyond what is now our visible limit, but that too would be speculation. In conclusion, I am not sure why you were responding to my note @5.Fasteddious_{October 5, 2022
October
10
Oct
5
05
2022
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

[T]he historical and personal evidence for God throughout human history is multilayered and pervasive, whereas the evidence for the multiverse remains firmly at zero.
What exactly is this "personal" evidence to which Caspian alludes? Surely it must be anecdotal and subjective? Testimonies, so to speak? What if both God and the multiverse exist? So many "what ifs."chuckdarwin_{October 5, 2022
October
10
Oct
5
05
2022
04:52 AM
4
04
52
AM
PDT}

Seversky: Multiverse hypotheses, as I understand it, are speculative mathematical solutions to certain problems in physics but there is as yet no evidence to support them.
But it certainly makes for entertaining movies. :)Sir Giles_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT}

By definition, the “universe” is everything that exists in the physical realm. By definition, anything that might exist beyond our universe is “metaphysical.”
My understanding has always been the Universe is all that exists whether physical or otherwise. By that definition, there can be nothing beyond it, The distinction is between the region of the Universe that is observable by us and whatever might be beyond from which information has yet to reach us. Multiverse hypotheses, as I understand it, are speculative mathematical solutions to certain problems in physics but there is as yet no evidence to support them.
By appealing to the metaphysical realm to explain fine-tuning or life itself, is akin to acknowledging God as the creator.
Or simply acknowledging that, at this point in time, we simply don't know. Unfortunately, an admission of ignorance does not answer human needs for hope of some form of personal survival after death or support in times of crisis. This is what neither science nor atheism can provide and why religion will continue to flourish for as long as human beings are as they are now.
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.
The evidence for God is either anecdotal or another speculative proposal to fill the gaps in our knowledge. It cannot be ruled out but, if held to the standard of evidence required of science, it does not stand up.Seversky_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

Again, Atheistic Naturalists simply have no clue why the universe has an exceptionally flat topology. As Paul Sutter explains, "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."
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
The author should be very grateful that the universe is ‘ever-so-boringly flat’. If the universe were not so ‘ever-so-boringly flat’ mathematics would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for humans to apply to the universe, and science and technology would therefore be extremely difficult if not impossible for humans. The reason why mathematics, especially geometry, is even applicable to the universe in the first place is precisely because the universe is exceptionally, and unexpectedly “flat”. As Fraser Cain stated in the following article, (which was referenced previously), “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.,,,’
How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe – by Fraser Cain – June 7, 2017 Excerpt: 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. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html
Simply put, 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 simply would not be applicable to our world. or to the universe at large, and this would make science and engineering for humans, for all practical purposes, all but impossible.
Line (geometry) Excerpt: When a geometry is described by a set of axioms, the notion of a line is usually left undefined (a so-called primitive object). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_(geometry) Primitive notion In mathematics, logic, philosophy, and formal systems, a primitive notion is a concept that is not defined in terms of previously-defined concepts. It is often motivated informally, usually by an appeal to intuition and everyday experience. - wiki
In fact, Sir Isaac Newton, the father of modern physics, was crucially dependent on Euclidean geometry in order for him to make his crucial breakthrough into modern physics.
“Isaac Newton explicitly referred to the authority of Euclidean geometry as a justification for the conservative form of the proofs in his Principia,,,” https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/691412
Moreover, the ‘insane coincidence’ of 1 in 10^57 flatness for the universe adds considerable weight to both Einstein’s and Wigner’s claim that the applicability of math to the universe is to be considered, by all rights, a miracle:
On the Rational Order of the World: a Letter to Maurice Solovine – Albert Einstein – March 30, 1952 Excerpt: “You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way .. the kind of order created by Newton’s theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the ‘miracle’ which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands. There lies the weakness of positivists and professional atheists who are elated because they feel that they have not only successfully rid the world of gods but “bared the miracles.” -Albert Einstein http://inters.org/Einstein-Letter-Solovine The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin’s process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind’s capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. - per pdf archive
As well, that science and engineering would be all but impossible for humans unless the universe were exceptionally flat, adds very strong support to a major philosophical presupposition that lay behind the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe. Namely, it lends very strong support to the Christian belief "that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism),"
“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bacon’s championing of inductive reasoning over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks) – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA
And as John Lennox succinctly explained,
“Our answer to the question of why the universe is rationally intelligible will in fact depend, not on whether we are scientists or not, but on whether we are theists or naturalists. Theists will say that the intelligibility of the universe is grounded in the nature of the ultimate rationality of God: both the real world and the mathematics are traceable to the Mind of God who created both the universe and the human mind. It is therefore, not surprising when the mathematical theories spun by human minds created in the image of God’s Mind, find ready application in a universe whose architect was that same creative mind.” - John Lennox
So thus in conclusion, while at first glance it may seem 'reasonable' that the unobserved part of the universe may be infinite in extent, and may contain an infinite number of parallel universes, on closer examination we find that Max's Tegmark's reliance on the universe's topology for inferring that the universe may be infinite in extent comes back to bite him big time. Namely, although the universe's topology is exceptionally flat, that exceptional flatness for the universe still doesn't tell us if the "universe is finite or infinite" in extent. Moreover, the exceptional, 1 in 10^57, flatness for the universe is the "most unlikely" of all topologies. Yet, it just so happens that this 'least likely' topology for the universe is the one topology that happens to allow the universe to be intelligible for humans. For the Christian Theist, this 'intelligibility' of the universe was expected. Yet, for the Atheistic Naturalist, this 'intelligibility' of the universe will always remain an 'insane coincidence" that simply has, and indeed can have, no coherent explanation.
Isaiah 45:18-19 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.”
bornagain77_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Fasteddious at 5
There is zero evidence for most Multiverse hypotheses, including the eternal inflation and the many-worlds models. However, one “multiverse” possibility is quite reasonable. That is the one that says our Universe does not “end” at the visible horizon of 14 billion light years, but goes beyond that, and we don’t know what (if anything) is outside that boundary.
Actually, while at first glance it may seem 'reasonable', there is a 'nuanced' falsification of the 'no boundary' universe, which Max Tegmark has termed the 'LEVEL I MULTIVERSE'. In Tegmark's ‘Level I multiverse’ we find that the ‘Level I multiverse’ is,, 'simply a region of space of this universe that is too far away for us to have seen yet'. Tegmark speculates that this unobserved part of the universe may be infinite and may therefore contain an infinite number of parallel universes.
Parallel Universes by Max Tegmark - 2003 THE SIMPLEST TYPE of parallel universe is simply a region of space that is too far away for us to have seen yet. LEVEL I MULTIVERSE THE SIMPLEST TYPE of parallel universe is simply a region of space that is too far away for us to have seen yet. The farthest that we can observe is currently about 4 x 10^26 meters, or 42 billion light-years — the distance that light has been able to travel since the big bang began. (The distance is greater than 14 billion light-years because cosmic expansion has lengthened distances.) Each of the Level I parallel universes is basically the same as ours. All the differences stem from variations in the initial arrangement of matter http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/PDF/multiverse_sciam.pdf
The main evidence that Tegmark puts forth for postulating that the space of this universe may be infinite, (and that an infinite number of parallel universes may exist outside what we can see), is the fact that the universe is not found to not be 'closed',,, or more precisely, the universe does not have a “positive” convex topology,,, As Tegmark stated, “Space could be finite if it has a convex curvature”
Parallel Universes by Max Tegmark - 2003 Excerpt: Space could be finite if it has a convex curvature or an unusual topology (that is, interconnectedness). A spherical, doughnut-shaped or pretzel-shaped universe would have a limited volume and no edges. The cosmic microwave background radiation allows sensitive tests of such scenarios [see “Is Space Finite?” by Jean-Pierre Luminet, Glenn D. Starkman and Jeffrey R. Weeks; Scientific American, April 1999]. So far, however, the evidence is against them. Infinite models fit the data, and strong limits have been placed on the alternatives.,,, The Level I multiverse framework is used routinely to evaluate theories in modern cosmology, although this procedure is rarely spelled out explicitly. For instance, consider how cosmologists used the microwave background to rule out a finite spherical geometry. Hot and cold spots in microwave background maps have a characteristic size that depends on the curvature of space, and the observed spots appear too small to be consistent with a spherical shape. - ibid
Since the topology of the universe is not 'positive and closed', the next 'most likely' topology for the universe would have been for the universe to be 'negative and open'. (And this would give Tegmark his 'open universe' in which to imagine an infinite number of universes beyond what we can see). Yet, the topology of the universe is not negative and open, but the universe is found to be "geometrically flat".
Picture of three topologies What is the shape of the universe? - 2001 The flat surface at the left is said to have zero curvature, the spherical surface is said to have positive curvature, and the saddle-shaped surface is said to have negative curvature.,,, * If space has negative curvature, there is insufficient mass to cause the expansion of the universe to stop. In such a case, the universe has no bounds, and will expand forever. This is called an open universe. * If space has no curvature (i.e, it is flat), there is exactly enough mass to cause the expansion to stop, but only after an infinite amount of time. Thus, the universe has no bounds and will also expand forever, but with the rate of expansion gradually approaching zero after an infinite amount of time. This is termed a flat universe or a Euclidian universe (because the usual geometry of non-curved surfaces that we learn in high school is called Euclidian geometry). *If space has positive curvature, there is more than enough mass to stop the present expansion of the universe. The universe in this case is not infinite, but it has no end (just as the area on the surface of a sphere is not infinite but there is no point on the sphere that could be called the "end"). The expansion will eventually stop and turn into a contraction. Thus, at some point in the future the galaxies will stop receding from each other and begin approaching each other as the universe collapses on itself. This is called a closed universe. ,,, Recent observations (such as the BOOMERANG and MAXIMA cosmic microwave background radiation results, and various supernova observations) (2001) imply that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. If so, this strongly suggests that the universe is geometrically "flat". https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question35.html
And a flat topology for the universe is the quote-unquote "most unlikely state of all" of all the topologies the universe could have been in. As John Gribbin commented “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,,, any deviation of the Universe from flatness in the Big Bang would have grown, and grown markedly, as the Universe expanded and aged.”
"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 - 2000 The universe is flat as a pancake. Coincidence? – Oct. 2016 Excerpt: NEXT time you fancy doing something really frustrating, try balancing a pencil on its sharpened tip. Your efforts will succeed for a second at most. Yet the universe has been succeeding at a similar gravitational trick for the last 13.8 billion years.,,, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23230970-800-cosmic-coincidences-the-universe-is-flat-as-a-pancake/
In fact, as the following article states, "the universe must have been flat to 1 part within 1×10^57 parts over its entire 13.8 billion years of expansion." And in regards to Tegmark's claim that the universe is infinite, they state,, "the biggest thing about the universe being flat is what it doesn't tell us. We still don't know if the universe is finite or infinite."
How do we know the universe is flat? Discovering the topology of the universe - by Fraser Cain - June 7, 2017 Excerpt: 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. But what are the implications for the entire universe? What does this tell us? Unfortunately, the biggest thing is what it doesn't tell us. We still don't know if the universe is finite or infinite.,,, Another thing this does, is that it actually causes a problem for the original Big Bang theory, requiring the development of a theory like inflation. 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. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html
Thus, Tegmark has exactly zero empirical evidence substantiating his belief that the universe must be infinite in size and contain an infinite number of parallel universes. The best Tegmark can claim from the evidence that we now have in hand is that we cannot yet completely rule out an infinitely large universe. Whereas the Theist, on the other hand, with the 1 part within 1×10^57 fine-tuning for the flatness of the universe can claim another fairly incredible piece of evidence for the fine tuning of the universe. The Atheistic Naturalists simply has no realistic clue why the universe should be found to be so exceptionally flat over its entire history. As the following author commented,,, there are,,, no laws of physics that predict or restrict the topology of the universe to be flat.
Yes, the world (universe) really is flat - December 8, 2016 Excerpt: The universe has all sorts of deformations in space-time where it varies from the perfectly flat. Any place where there’s mass or energy, there’s a corresponding bending of space-time — that’s General Relativity 101. So a couple light beams would naturally collide inside a wandering black hole, or bend along weird angles after encountering a galaxy or two. But average all those small-scale effects out and look at the big picture. When we examine very old light — say, the cosmic microwave background — that has been traveling the universe for more than 13.8 billion years, we get a true sense of the universe’s shape. And the answer, as far as we can tell, to within an incredibly small margin of uncertainty, is that the universe is flat.,,, ,,, but there are also no laws of physics that predict or restrict the topology. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/yes-the-world-really-is-flat/
In fact, under Atheistic Naturalism there is no reason why any of the constants and/or laws of physics should remain constant. As the following astronomer commented, “There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,”
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-scientists-question-nature-fundamental-laws.html “There cannot be, in principle, a naturalistic bottom-up explanation for immutable physical laws — which are themselves an ‘expression’ of top-down causation. A bottom-up explanation, from the level of e.g. bosons, should be expected to give rise to innumerable different ever-changing laws. By analogy, particles give rise to innumerable different conglomerations. Moreover a bottom-up process from bosons to physical laws is in need of constraints (laws) in order to produce a limited set of universal laws. Paul Davies: “Physical processes, however violent or complex, are thought to have absolutely no effect on the laws. There is thus a curious asymmetry: physical processes depend on laws but the laws do not depend on physical processes. Although this statement cannot be proved, it is widely accepted.” Saying that laws do not depend on physical processes, is another way of saying that laws cannot be explained by physical processes.” – Origenes – UD blogger
And yet, despite Atheistic Naturalism failing to predict and/or explain a flat universe, on the other hand, thousands of years ago, long before modern science came along and discovered an exceptionally flat universe, the Bible tells of God stretching "a measuring line" to mark off the dimensions of the earth's foundations.
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?
bornagain77_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
03:46 PM
3
03
46
PM
PDT}

There is zero evidence for most Multiverse hypotheses, including the eternal inflation and the many-worlds models. However, one "multiverse" possibility is quite reasonable. That is the one that says our Universe does not "end" at the visible horizon of 14 billion light years, but goes beyond that, and we don't know what (if anything) is outside that boundary. Given that our Universe is essentially flat, largely isotropic and somewhat homogeneous, it is reasonable to assume that the same conditions exist out past the "edges", perhaps for a great many billion light years in any direction. This raises the possibility of "other" Universes beyond ours. Mind you they would all have the same age, fine tuning and general attributes, so they would look like "more of the same" if we could ever see them. Then again, you could claim they are all part of our Universe since there is no true "boundary", only age, expansion and the speed of light. Indeed, someone 7 billion light years from us should be able to see 7 billion light years farther away than we can see and could (in principle) send us information about those parts, which we would receive more than 7 billion years later. Nevertheless, calling every 28 billion light-year diameter bubble within a much larger expanse a "separate universe" is not unreasonable, while positing "nothing" (any version of nothing) beyond 14 billion light years seems very unreasonable from a cosmological perspective.Fasteddious_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

Since comic books, and related movies, are using the invented word, Multiverse, some kids will think about it. But aside from comic books and SF stories, it is not a plausible idea.relatd_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Finally, someone who gets it.jerry_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

It is absolutely nonsense It creates anything including God, multiple gods, aliens, demons, inter-dimensional beings (demons), space internet, and what ever else is imaginable with the roll of a dice. Then you have to start CREATING these small little rules the multiverse has to full. What these rules are and where they came from are a complete mystery but they are necessary to keep the multi-verse from killing itself because it’s so unintelligent that it would self implode with its ability to create anything, including a multi universal black hole, sucking everything back into a singularity. And when you’re finally done plugging all the leaks in the absurdity of the multi-verse you end up with all the absurdity with no way to observe it. EXCEPT it would and could create infinite number of beings capable of traveling between them all, another thing we absolutely don’t see. Great theory another god of gaps dressed up as science like Darwinian evolutionAaronS1978_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

The multiverse fails because of logic. Anyone defending the notion of the multiverse, please explain what is not possible? Once one tries, they realize what must then be possible. Absurdity after absurdity arises. Prediction: as always they will ignore the obvious.jerry_{October 4, 2022
October
10
Oct
4
04
2022
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply