Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Rescuing the multiverse as a science concept… ?

arroba Email

Australian theoretical astrophysicist Luke Barnes makes the attempt, riffing off the recent film Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness:

How did our universe get the right mix of ingredients? Perhaps we won the cosmic lottery. Perhaps, on scales much bigger than what our telescopes can see, other parts of the universe have different building blocks.

Our universe is just one of the options—a particularly fortunate one—among a multiverse of universes with losing tickets.

This is the scientific multiverse: not simply more of our universe, but universes with different fundamental ingredients. Most are dead, but very very rarely, the right combination for life-forms comes up.

The Marvel multiverse, by contrast, merely rearranges the familiar atoms and forces of our universe (plus a bit of magic). That’s not enough.

Luke Barnes, “What is the multiverse, and does it really exist?” at Phys.org (May 6, 2022)

Barnes concludes,

In the cycle of the scientific method, the multiverse is in an exploratory phase. We’ve got an idea that might explain a few things, if it was true. That makes it worthy of our attention, but it’s not quite science yet. We need to find evidence that is more direct, more decisive.

Luke Barnes, “What is the multiverse, and does it really exist?” at Phys.org (May 6, 2022)

The multiverse is not believed to be true because of evidence but because it enables evasion of the logical consequences of fine-tuning of our own universe.

You may also wish to read: What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

As Sabine has stated, the Multiverse is not science (yet) because there's not a wit of empirical evidence to support it. Science requires empirical evidence. Not merely nice hypotheses. Mathematics is not science. --RAM ram
the universe undergoes endless cycles of destruction and creation, so that’s a possibility
No, it's not a possibility. It's self refuting. jerry
I sat through an hour and a half of this last night: Perimeter Institute Director Neil Turok, physicist. Finally, in the last 10 minutes he says that the "huge puzzle" is how did the universe "tune itself"? He says his colleagues came up with the multiverse "theory" - then he's surprisingly honest. There's nothing more to say about it. So instead, he doesn't like that and proposes "endless cycles of destruction and creation". But "endless" means "beginningless" - so we're back to an infinite universe after all.
So um huge puzzle for physics … How did the universe tune itself into this very delicate balance? Some people propose a multiverse and this is called by some the end of physics. They say, “Look, there's” … basically what they're saying is … “some things we'll never explain so let's just postulate that there are infinite number of possible universes and we happen to be in one that came out like this.” Okay, there's not much more to it than that and it just happened.that um string theory was re reaching a crisis of predictability. The problem with this theory is that it can't make any predictions nobody can define probabilities there's no pythagoras theorem in this theory it really is just wild randomness and so some of us believe there's probably a simpler answer and I think for me the fact the universe is so simple,; around us indicates this multi-vice multi multiverse idea is probably wrong. So instead what I'm much more interested in is the idea of a cyclic universe that the big bang came about when matter collapsed the higgs field was restored scale symmetry became perfect you entered the big big big crunch a big bang emerged and the universe undergoes endless cycles of destruction and creation, so that's a possibility … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1x9lgX8GaE&t=5155s
Silver Asiatic
It is not surprising Darwinists favor the multiverse, since they already accept fiction as science and lack of evidence as evidence. BobRyan
Everyone ignores the obvious way to refute the Multiverse and infinity.           Why? jerry
No. This is philosophical rambling, not science. It will never be science because neither side of the question can ever be tested and proved. Apparently the rambling is interesting to the ramblers, but they should do it on their own time and their own dime. polistra

Leave a Reply