Granting certain premises he finds attractive. Siegel asks: If there really is another version of you out there in a parallel universe, what can that teach us about reality?:
If we presume that:
● the hot Big Bang, which gave rise to the observable universe as we know it, was preceded by cosmic inflation
● all of the particles and fields within the universe are fundamentally quantum in nature
Then it follows that the existence of a multiverse is all but inevitable. It opens up a rich realm of physical possibilities that include not only parallel universes, but also an infinite number of them out there. If that’s the case, there could even be parallel universes identical to our own, where reality “forks” each time a quantum outcome occurs. Here’s what’s possible within a scientific consideration of the multiverse.
Ethan Siegel, “Could there be a parallel universe identical to our own?” at BigThink (September 29, 2021)
Essentially, Siegel, the person who has Big Problems with something as widely accepted as the Big Bang, is quite prepared to believe in all this far out stuff.
That is where the naturalist project is just now.
You may also wish to read: Ethan Siegel makes another paper assault on the Big Bang. Is the Big Bang the least popular widely accepted science theory? Theoretical astrophysicist Ethan Siegel wishes it out of existence by positing a cosmic inflation that wipes out all possibility of knowledge.
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.”
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).”
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.”
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,
,,, and the Bible is also on record as to predicting the near perfect uniformity, (i.e. homogeneity), of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR),
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,,,
,,, 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.”
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.’
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.”
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.
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:
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.
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.
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, perhaps you might like to know that,
ChuckyD,
I’m curious, are you here to offer any evidence for belief in the multiverse? Or simply to troll?
.
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?
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.