Ethan Siegel: The multiverse (and another you) are “all but inevitable”

The multiverse just multiplies the problems for materialism. It's pretty stupid to think that materialism can account for a multiverse when it can't even account for a universe. ET

.

Chuck: Like, for example, intelligent design “theory.”

Speaking of predictions, it was predicted that autonomous self-replication would be code-based, and that encoded descriptions of the constraints (that are required to interpret this code) would be among the descriptions encoded. Chuck, is the Genetic Code established by description? Upright BiPed

ChuckyD, I’m curious, are you here to offer any evidence for belief in the multiverse? Or simply to troll? Seekers

ChuckDarwin, perhaps you might like to know that,

Whereas atheists have no observational/empirical evidence that the Multiverses that they postulated to ‘explain. away’ the fine tuning of the universe are real, nor do Atheists have any evidence that the ‘parallel universes’ that they postulated to ‘explain away’ quantum wave collapse are real, Christians, on the other hand, can appeal directly to Special Relativity, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics, (i.e. our most precisely tested theories ever in the history of science), to support their belief that God really does uphold this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in the reality of a heavenly dimension and in the reality of a hellish dimension.” https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/closer-to-truth-are-there-really-extra-dimensions/#comment-722947

bornagain77

Borngain says: “As the old saying goes,, a theory that predicts everything predicts nothing.” Like, for example, intelligent design “theory.” It is strange that Christian apologists mock concepts like cosmic inflation or the multiverse, but are completely credulous about notions like heaven or hell or purgatory…. chuckdarwin

If there is another you out there, there is an infinite number of you’s out there. It also means there is an infinite number of infinite beings with infinite knowledge and power and an infinite number of them who said “let there be light.” And in English. Any concept of such a multiverse leads to nonsense. Less than an infinite number leads to a fine tuning problem. jerry

Simply put, without some remarkable degree of exceptional, and stable, flatness for the space-time of the universe over the entire history of the universe, (as well as exceptional stability for all the other constants of the universe over the entire history of the universe), Euclidean (3-Dimensional) geometry would not be applicable to our world, or to the universe at large, and this would obviously make modern science and engineering for humans, for all practical purposes, all but impossible. As the following article states, '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.'

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

Another interesting thing about the ‘perfect’ flatness of the universe, (other than the fact that it allows us to "miraculously", (Eugene Wigner), apply mathematics to the universe in the first place), is that it allows us to see that the “tiny temperature variations in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe.”

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. https://phys.org/news/2017-06-universe-flat-topology.html

Moreover, these “tiny temperature variations in the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (that) correspond to the largest scale structures of the observable universe” just so happen to give the earth and solar system a 'privileged' position in the universe. Here is an excellent clip from the documentary “The Principle” that explains, in an easy to understand manner, how these ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR, that 'just so happen' to 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 Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw

Moreover, in regards to the largest scale structures of the universe, 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

In other words, the “tiny temperature variations” in the CMBR, and the largest 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. ,,, The earth and solar system, from what our best science can now tell us, is not some random cosmic fluke, and/or random quantum fluctuation, as atheists had presupposed in their ad hoc inflation model that sought to 'explain away' the fine-tuning of the flatness and homogeneity of the universe.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Isaiah 45:18 “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”

bornagain77

Siegel believes that cosmic inflation must be true because because he believes cosmic inflation has made several correct predictions. Yet, contrary to what Siegel believes, Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, states “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/article/dn26272-cosmic-inflation-is-dead-long-live-cosmic-inflation.html?page=1#.VCajrGl0y00

As the old saying goes,, a theory that predicts everything predicts nothing. Moreover, as Brian Miller pointed out yesterday, the reason why inflationary theory was even postulated in the first place was because of fine-tuning. Specifically, Brian Miller stated, "Inflationary theory was initially developed to explain the fine-tuning implied by the “flatness” of space and the near perfect uniformity of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The flatness represents the lack in curvature of space that the theory of general relativity would normally predict. According to the standard Big Bang model, the lack of curvature required the mass density of the early universe to have been fine-tuned to greater than 1 part in 10^60 (a 1 with 60 zeros behind it)."

Critics Respond to Stephen Meyer’s New Book (Without Mentioning Him by Name) Brian Miller - October 16, 2021 Excerpt: Siegel attempts to find a loophole for the conclusion of a cosmic beginning by appealing to the theory known as eternal chaotic inflation. Inflationary theory was initially developed to explain the fine-tuning implied by the “flatness” of space and the near perfect uniformity, (i.e. homogeneity), of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The flatness represents the lack in curvature of space that the theory of general relativity would normally predict. According to the standard Big Bang model, the lack of curvature required the mass density of the early universe to have been fine-tuned to greater than 1 part in 1060 (a 1 with 60 zeros behind it). https://evolutionnews.org/2021/10/critics-respond-to-stephen-meyers-new-book-without-mentioning-him-by-name/

In short, given that according to Steinhart himself inflationary theory 'predicts everything', then inflationary theory was not really postulated in order to explain fine-tuning, but was, in actuality, postulated merely to 'explain away' the fine-tuning of flatness and homogeneity. And to add significant weight to Steinhardt's claim that inflationary theory does not really predict why our universe should have the macroscopic properties of flatness and homogeneity, it has now been proven, via the extension of Godel's incompleteness theorem into quantum physics that, “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." http://phys.org/news/2015-12-quantum-physics-problem-unsolvable-godel.html Undecidability of the Spectral Gap – June 16, 2020 Toby Cubitt, David Perez-Garcia, and Michael M. Wolf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.04573.pdf

And whereas inflationary theory, contrary to what Siegel claimed, did not, (and indeed it is now proven, via Godel, that inflationary theory can not), predict why our universe has the specific finely-tuned macroscopic properties of flatness and homogeneity, the Bible is, (to the consternation of atheists), on record as to predicting that the universe would be exceptionally 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?

,,, and the Bible is also on record as to predicting the near perfect uniformity, (i.e. homogeneity), of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR),

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.

Moreover, although atheists have no realistic clue why humans, (whom they consider to be purely material beings with no transcendent component to their being), should even be able to contemplate the immaterial 'platonic' realm of abstract mathematics in the first place,,,

The Fundamental Difference Between Humans and Nonhuman Animals - Michael Egnor - November 5, 2015 Excerpt: Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals. Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different -- ontologically different -- from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.,,, It is a radical difference -- an immeasurable qualitative difference, not a quantitative difference. We are more different from apes than apes are from viruses.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2100661.html

,,, although atheists have no realistic clue why humans, (whom they consider to be purely material beings with no transcendent component to their being), should even be able to contemplate the immaterial 'platonic' realm of abstract mathematics in the first place, if it were not the exceptional flatness of the universe, then applying mathematics to the universe at large would be all but impossible for us. As the following articles state, "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.,,," and, "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."

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 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

bornagain77