Claim: The multiverse is a logical outcome of the existence of empty space

"The controversial idea that our universe is just a random bubble in an endless, frothing multiverse arises logically from nature’s most innocuous-seeming feature: empty space. Specifically, the seed of the multiverse hypothesis is the inexplicably tiny amount of energy infused in empty space...." Consider the Big Bang. Is this really entirely and completely explained (as per Hawking and others) by a random fluctuation of a point in the vacuum, so as to eliminate any need for some form of creative Intelligence? Whatever the "a priori reality" preceding the Big Bang was, it must have included the potentiality and "blueprint" of the process of the Big Bang and cosmic inflation leading to our present Universe. This potentiality and blueprint therefore contained the immense amount of specified information constituting the mathematical structure of the quantum physics underlying this process and our present Universe. To say this potentiality and blueprint simply existed with no intelligent origin is like claiming that a portrait by Rembrandt had no creator, that the work of art was like a fundamental logical truth. doubter

The logical outcome of the existence of empty space is a continuation of empty space. From the wisdom of a kindergarten class. ayearningforpublius

Where did the empty space come from? aarceng

News, Speaking of theories that don't work very well, see this: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25767 Apparently there's a galaxy out there that appears to have no dark matter in it, based on how it's behaving. What The Heck (TM)??? EDTA

And so are monkeys flying out of my ass a logical result of the multiverse - something that explains everything, explains nothing - its a thought experiment with no actual physical evidence, and there never will be (my opinion). It was created specifically to counter ideas of fine tuning and their implications, so this should make one skeptical from the start - as they are literally relying on a near infinite or nearly so number of these already in existence. Oh there is a cold spot in the MBR, must be a multiverse clue!!! That's not science. the real story was the Axis of Evil that kind of just went away.... Tom Robbins

mike1962 @ 5: FourFaces, sounds like you think we’re living in a algorithmically generated universe, i.e, a virtual reality (“simulation”, although I object to that term). I think there are some very good reasons to suspect that. It does seem like it could be virtual since the physical universe is just a bunch of particles with variable properties but I don't think it can be simulated. I think it's the real thing. Why? Because I believe that the spirit/soul that gives us consciousness requires a special configuration of atoms and properties to interface with the brain. You can't get that in a simulation. This is the reason that copying and uploading a human brain to a computer will not work. The soul cannot interface with the bits in the computer. FourFaces

Well jdk, since Weinberg is an atheist, I can see how he would say what he said, but, on the other hand, since physics was born out of the Christian presupposition of a 'universal law giver' (C.S. Lewis; John Lennox,, etc..), then the Christian is STILL sitting fairly comfortable in his presupposition that God is behind the laws of nature. As Hawking himself once asked 'What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?'

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?” - Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time

And as long as Atheists continue to deny the reality of God, they will always be left with these supposedly unanswerable questions that were posed by Weinberg and Hawking! The atheist's worldview is insane on the face of it. Think about it. The atheist, especially in his multiverse conjecture, is basically claiming that random chaos gave rise to the universal laws and constants. It is hard to imagine a more self-contradictory claim than that! In any other endeavor, such a self-contradictory claim would be soundly ridiculed as ludicrous. But alas, when an atheistic physicist makes the claim all is. apparently, business as usual. This ought not be so. Sanity should kick in somewhere for the atheist. But alas, save for a very few, such as Anthony Flew, sanity is apparently a rare commodity for atheists. bornagain77

ba77 quotes Steven Weinberg as saying,

And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.

I absolutely agree with that. No matter what we figure out - how many layers of explanation we develop - the question of "well, why is it like that will always be there about the last current layer. I really liked Weinberg's book "Dreams of a Final Theory." jdk

A few notes: Firstly, it is interesting to note what Weinberg himself stated:

"I don't think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don't describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question 'why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?'. And I don't see any way out of that. The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,," (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists) "No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don't even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility." Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495

Secondly, another major problem in trying to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity is that when theorists try to combine the two theories, then the resulting theory predicts that spacetime, atoms, and the universe itself should all be literally torn apart. Here are a few references that get this point across.

Goedel's Way : Exploits into an Undecidable World Excerpt: "There are serious problems with the traditional view that the world is a space-time continuum. Quantum field theory and general relativity contradict each other. The notion of space-time breaks down at very small distances, because extremely massive quantum fluctuations (virtual particle/antiparticle pairs) should provoke black holes and space-time should be torn apart, which doesn’t actually happen." - Gregory J. Chaitin , Francisco A. Doria, and Newton C. a. Da Costa https://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~chaitin/bookgoedel_6.pdf Cosmic coincidence spotted - Philip Ball - 2008 Excerpt: One interpretation of dark energy is that it results from the energy of empty space, called vacuum energy. The laws of quantum physics imply that empty space is not empty at all, but filled with particles popping in and out of existence. This particle ‘fizz’ should push objects apart, just as dark energy seems to require. But the theoretical value of this energy is immense — so huge that it should blow atoms apart, rather than just causing the Universe to accelerate. Physicists think that some unknown force nearly perfectly cancels out the vacuum energy, leaving only the amount seen as dark energy to push things apart. This cancellation is imperfect to an absurdly fine margin: the unknown 'energy' differs from the vacuum energy by just one part in 10^122. It seems incredible that any physical mechanism could be so finely poised as to reduce the vacuum energy to within a whisker of zero, but it seems to be so. http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080219/full/news.2008.610.html The 2 most dangerous numbers in the universe are threatening the end of physics - Jessica Orwig - Jan. 14, 2016 Excerpt: Dangerous No. 2: The strength of dark energy ,,, you should be able to sum up all the energy of empty space to get a value representing the strength of dark energy. And although theoretical physicists have done so, there's one gigantic problem with their answer: "Dark energy should be 10^120 times stronger than the value we observe from astronomy," Cliff said. "This is a number so mind-boggling huge that it's impossible to get your head around ... this number is bigger than any number in astronomy — it's a thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion times bigger than the number of atoms in the universe. That's a pretty bad prediction." On the bright side, we're lucky that dark energy is smaller than theorists predict. If it followed our theoretical models, then the repulsive force of dark energy would be so huge that it would literally rip our universe apart. The fundamental forces that bind atoms together would be powerless against it and nothing could ever form — galaxies, stars, planets, and life as we know it would not exist. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/two-most-dangerous-numbers-universe-194557366.html

Yet since both quantum mechanics and general relativity are both tested to extreme levels of precision, and we can thus have a high level of confidence that both theories are true,

The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science - May 5, 2011 Excerpt: So, which of the two (general relativity or QED) is The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science? It’s a little tough to quantify a title like that, but I think relativity can claim to have tested the smallest effects. Things like the aluminum ion clock experiments showing shifts in the rate of a clock set moving at a few m/s, or raised by a foot, measure relativistic shifts of a few parts in 10^16. That is, if one clock ticks 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, the other ticks 9,999,999,999,999,999 times. That’s an impressively tiny effect, but the measured value is in good agreement with the predictions of relativity. In the end, though, I have to give the nod to QED, because while the absolute effects in relativity may be smaller, the precision of the measurements in QED is more impressive. Experimental tests of relativity measure tiny shifts, but to only a few decimal places. Experimental tests of QED measure small shifts, but to an absurd number of decimal places. The most impressive of these is the “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” expressed is terms of a number g whose best measured value is: g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 73 (28) Depending on how you want to count it, that’s either 11 or 14 digits of precision (the value you would expect without QED is exactly 1, so in some sense, the shift really starts with the first non-zero decimal place), which is just incredible. And QED correctly predicts all those decimal places (at least to within the measurement uncertainty, given by the two digits in parentheses at the end of that). http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/05/05/the-most-precisely-tested-theo/

,,, and since Godel's incompleteness theorem requires something to be 'outside the circle' of mathematics,

Gödel's incompleteness theorem (1931), proves that there are limits to what can be ascertained by mathematics. Kurt Gödel (ref. on cite), halted the achievement of a unifying all-encompassing theory of everything in his theorem that: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove”. Cf., Stephen Hawking & Leonard Miodinow, The Grand Design (2010) @ 15-6

,,, then it is fairly safe to assume that something very powerful must be holding the universe together. ,,, For the Christian this should not be surprising. Christianity predicts that in him all things hold together and also that Christ upholds the universe by the word of his power.

 Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. Hebrews 1:3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

The following article gives us a small glimpse into just how powerful Christ word might be.

“In order for quantum mechanics and relativity theory to be internally self-consistent [Seeking consistency between quantum mechanics and relativity theory is the major task theoretical physicists have been grappling with since quantum mechanics emerged], the physical vacuum has to contain 10^94 grams equivalent of energy per cubic centimeter. What that means is, if you take just a single hydrogen atom, which is one proton and one electron and all the rest of the atom is ‘empty space,’ if you take just that volume of empty space, … you find that you end up with a trillion times as much vacuum energy as all the electromagnetic energy in all the planets, all the stars, and all the cosmic dust in a sphere of radius 15 billion light-years.” To summarize, the subtle energy in the vacuum space of a single hydrogen atom is as great as all the electromagnetic energy found in everything within 15 billion light-years of our space-time cosmos.” ,,, Dr. William Tiller http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1093640-a-physicists-view-of-human-intention-it-physically-exists-can-be-imprinted-into-a-machine/

Some theoretical physicists have remarked that the failure to mathematically unify Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into a mathematical “Theory of Everything” is ‘the collapse of physics as we know it’

Quantum Mechanics & Relativity – Michio Kaku - The Collapse Of Physics As We Know It ? - video http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2jbd7x

On the other hand, since physics was born out of Christianity in the first place, I hold that this supposed failure for physics is actually a sure mark signifying Christ's preordained victory over death:

Copernican Principle, Agent Causality, and Jesus Christ as the “Theory of Everything” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NziDraiPiOw

Verses and music:

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. "Alive" - W,Lyrics, By Natalie Grant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFpgzjRD44

bornagain77

FourFaces, sounds like you think we're living in a algorithmically generated universe, i.e, a virtual reality ("simulation", although I object to that term). I think there are some very good reasons to suspect that. mike1962

Truth @ 3: Sounds fascinating. What are the seeds of this technology? How far off? The first thing physicists will need to understand is that the location or position of a particle is not a property of space (which does not exist) but a variable property of the particle itself. This makes everything absolute, not relative as the relativists wrongly claim. Second, we will need to figure out how to cause the position of a particle to change by a value greater than the fundamental discrete distance which some people call the Planck distance. There is no reason to suppose that this is impossible. At this time, I don't know how to achieve this but I suspect that some genius will figure it out and usher the golden age of instant long-distance travel onto a brave new world. I, for one, would love to travel to Mars instantly. Heck, I would be more than happy to be able to instantly travel to any place in the world at a moment's notice. Note to Christians: Instant transportation (not to be confused with teleportation) is mentioned in the New Testament. Look it up, if you're interested. FourFaces

FourFaces @ 2: "One day, in the not too distant future, we will develop technology that will allow us to travel instantly from anywhere to anywhere." Sounds fascinating. What are the seeds of this technology? How far off? Truth Will Set You Free

Specifically, the seed of the multiverse hypothesis is the inexplicably tiny amount of energy infused in empty space — energy known as the vacuum energy, dark energy or the cosmological constant. This makes no sense whatsoever. First, if it's empty, why say it has energy? Second, the energy in space (vacuum energy) is certainly not tiny. Physicist Richard Feynman once said that "there is enough energy inside the space in an empty cup to boil all the oceans of the world." Space itself is abstract: it does not exist. There are many abstract things that are ascribed "existence" by physicists but are nevertheless non-physical creations of the mind. There is a foolproof way to determine whether or not something exists physically: just ask yourself simple questions such as "what is it made of?" or "where is it?". If you cannot answer the questions, it does not exist. Examples are distance, space, time, volume, width, height, unemployment rate, etc. None of them exists. So yes, distance is an illusion/creation of the mind. Once you understand this, 99% of the unexplainable paradoxes of physics disappear. For example, Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" is no longer spooky. One day, in the not too distant future, we will develop technology that will allow us to travel instantly from anywhere to anywhere. FourFaces

Just more multiverse musings. No new science. No new empirical evidence. No new facts. Why this stuff is considered science is beyond me. Truth Will Set You Free