Maybe, if even The Atlantic has articles with this title: The Multiverse Idea is Rotting Culture
There’s no way we could ever carry out any experiment to test for the multiverse’s existence in the world, because it’s not in our world. It’s an article of faith, and not a very secure one. What’s more likely: a potentially infinite number of useless parallel universes, or one perfectly ordinary God?
There’s nothing wrong with faith, but if it’s not recognized for what it is then monsters start to spawn, not in some distant reality, but right here. No religion is complete without a moral code, but how do you live ethically in our shapeless foam of worlds, invisible to telescopes but throbbing close at the moment of every decision?
22 Replies to “Is the “Multiverse” Reaching its Sell By Date?”
The Atlantic’s article titles are of no importance. Scientific models don’t have expiration dates. And the problem of living ethically dogs religion as much as irreligion (as ISIS/ISIL demonstrates).
The double slit experiment, which was mentioned in the article, is VERY friendly to Christian concerns:
Here is a bit deeper look at the many fallacies inherent in the Many Worlds Interpretation:
Of related note. Many Worlds interpretation (MWI) denies the actuality of wave-function collapse:
Yet, contrary to MWI, the following experiment shows that the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,,
Moreover, Many Worlds truly exposes materialism in all its full blown absurdity. i.e. The material particle is given so much unmerited power in the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that every time someone simply observes a particle, instead of the wave function merely collapsing, the particle instead creates a virtual infinity of parallel universes.
Many worlds is basically saying that, instead of God, the material particle has somehow bestowed within itself the omnipotent power to create as many universes as it wants or needs to in order to ‘explain away’ wave function collapse! And I am not overstating the bizarre case in the least!
Since the MWI is different from multiverse models, comment #2 seems irrelevant.
perhaps someone should read the article.
I did. Much ado about nothing.
Then why in blue blazes did you make your comment at 3 when he makes it clear in his article that he is talking about the multiverse associated with Many Worlds? And why not apologize for being wrong in your comment at 3 whether you read the article previously or not?
Moreover, if you disagree that MWI is a subset of the multiverse scenarios envisioned by atheistic materialists to try to get around the Theistic implications of the creation and sustaining of the universe, then why don’t you take that up with Dr. Multiverse himself, Max Tegmark, in which he lists the MWI as a distinct subset of the multiverse scenarios?
As to Tegmark’s claim that wave interference and quantum computation supports MWI, here are refutations to those two claims:
Yes, it’s remarkable that a magazine like the Atlantic should take an interest and take this view.
The multiverse is giving cosmology a bad name because most people are not yet ready to give up on falsifiability If we do, why fund science?
Multiverse models are potentially falsifiable; there are active efforts to test them even now.
We fund science because it’s the most reliable way to gain knowledge about the world we live in; and that knowledge is valuable.
Exactly how do you falsify any particular multiverse theory that predicts everything?
This is going to seem strange to you, but because I am a rational person, Tegmark’s opinions are not Authoritative. Even his colleagues dare to disagree. Some reject the MWI, some reject multiverse models, some disagree on the details.
But being a religious believer (as you are) perhaps makes you inclined to give some persons (like Tegmark) the Authority to declare some facts as true. We rational persons never grant that power to anyone. Nothing is so because [insert Eminent Scientist] says so. This difference has a lot to do with the long-lasting disputes on this site.
And it is not just a little ironic that I have to explain this on a creationist site, devoted to declaring Eminent Scientists wrong!
From what I have read, The MWI is about quantum wave collapse; about what happens in the world.
Multiverse models are about how our Universe originated; about how the world came to be.
It should be obvious that those two are different no matter how much they may be related. Quantum effects occur in biology, but that does not make either a subset of the other.
As for Kriss’s article: like your #2, it is an attempt to shoe-horn religious ideas into some cherry-picked science.
If you’ve actually read about multiverse models, then you already know how some are trying to observationally verify the idea. There’s this wonderful search engine called “Google”… Try it, you’ll be amazed what you will find.
Sean @ 8–
“We fund science because it’s the most reliable way to gain knowledge about the world we live in; and that knowledge is valuable.”
Well, no, child. We, that is the federal government and large tax-exempt “charities”, fund Science because otherwise colleges couldn’t charge obscene amounts of money to confer doctorates in Underwater Basket-weaving.
Science pursued for practical application (i.e., the PORTION of knowledge that is valuable) is paid for by corporations who expect to improve their products. There ain’t no payback for yet another theory about Neanderthals or how closely whales are related to bears.
sean samis, who has now established himself as a troll, claims that
“I am a rational person”
Yet according to atheistic materialism in which there is no free will, and people become merely neuronal illusions, sean samis can neither be rational nor can he even be a real ‘person’.
sean the troll goes on to claim that Tegmark is not an expert on multiverse models, Yet,,,
Thus basically we have sean revealing that he did not even read the article in 3. Then lying about not reading it in 5. Then making an unsubstantiated claim towards falsifiability in 8. Then in post 10 he falsely proclaims that the Tegmark to be a non-expert in the area of multiverses.
Thus, all sean has really done in this thread is reveal himself to be a atheistic troll who could care less for truth. And if he persists in his gross misconduct towards me in his claims, I will ask that he be removed from UD for such gross misconduct.
Guys why hasn’t anyone posted this video link yet ?
Physicist James Gates finds a special kind of computer code embedded deep withon the equations for string theory which prompted Neil degrassi Tyson to say “you mean to tell me that some entity just programmed the universe and we are just expressions of its code ?”
Very exciting stuff
I guess I should not be surprised; bornagain77 seems to regard anyone who dares to disagree as a troll, a liar, or both.
But for the record; when bornagain77 wrote:
Those are lies. At no point did I ever say anything like that. Search in vain for such statements from me.
Unlike bornagain77, I do not advocate his banishment from the site for this gross misconduct. I’m a grown up; I don’t hide from bullies. We have a vigorous disagreement, nothing more.
Talking to a wall would be much more productive than replying to some of your interlocutors in this thread. 🙂
But I assume you’re doing it for the anonymous onlookers/lurkers visiting this thread without commenting.
Perhaps that’s a persuasive argument for using your interlocutors as a reminder for writing your interesting comments for the other visitors.
In any case, thank you.
BTW, some of your interlocutors might like to know that Norwegian Airlines is offering heavily discounted fares for trips to their beautiful fjords. Returning to their natural habitats seems very affordable these days. 🙂
Banning doesn’t seem very polite, does it?
It would be nicer if they voluntarily decide to get back to where they once belonged. 🙂
However, in either case it would be a good riddance, because the hogwash they write shouldn’t be missed, except as motivational tools for writing for the serious readers. 🙂
Dear Mr Sean Samis
You claimed that “multiverse models are potentially falsifiable; there are active efforts to test them even now”
You were asked how this could be done. Please answer the question
chris haynes 16
“Dear Mr Sean Samis
You claimed that “multiverse models are potentially falsifiable; there are active efforts to test them even now”
You were asked how this could be done. Please answer the question”
Well, maybe they can’t be tested in THIS universe, but…
please indicate your age range – I am just curious
a) 10-20 b) 20-30 c) 30- 40 d) 40-50 e) >50
@sean semis – And I would also be interested in any other details of your curricula vitae
Professional Societies –
I have an intellectual fascination with people who are unable to understand that the belief, “I can rightly conclude from the evidence that this is a material universe,” is an inherently self contradictory viewpoint and belongs to the set of ideas that CANNOT possibly be true.
It is quite an achievement to be able to select for belief a statement which defies elementary logic.
The thing that fascinates me is how atheists are shown to have prodigious faith in something eternal with god-like creative powers. It’s almost like they have no issues whatsoever believing in a god, just so long as it doesn’t bear that particular label.
I tend to think that it’s because they don’t want that eternal thing with god-like creative powers to also be personal and have the ability to ground and impose moral values and duties on humans.
As the multiverse has demonstrated, atheists have no problem at all with faith in something that is unseen, intangible, outside of the physical universe, eternal, capable of bringing about unlikely effects we can’t fully understand, and that cannot be falsified through any conceivable scientific experiment.
The only thing they insist on stopping short of is something that is intelligent and that can ground moral values and duties … and probably they stop short of the former only because of the latter, as suggested by the willingness of some to accept the idea that we’re living in an intelligently designed simulation created by other contingent physical beings based largely on the same scientific evidence theists point to as suggestive of God’s existence, which they had denied suggested design until the simulation hypothesis came along. Neil deGrasse Tyson is one such example.
BTW, long time no talk. I don’t know if you noticed but I responded in our conversation at the other board about 2 months ago.
Absolutely! The other thing I find a ironic is that the same atheists believe that consciousness somehow just “emerges” out of complexity. What could be more complex than the multi-verse? Maybe a conscious, eternal entity with god-like powers simply “emerged” out of that vast complexity. Oops. Can’t have that. We must, must, must not let a divine foot in the door. But the lesser complexity of a single human brain? Sure. Why not?
I’ve been meaning to get back to our conversation at some point, but just haven’t found the time. Even if I don’t make it back, I enjoyed it for what it was and hope you did as well. I think it helped me sort out a few things, strengthening my beliefs, and what could be better than that?