Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Multiverse Gods, part 1

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

G-d, the failed hypothesisThe Fallacy of Fine-TuningVictor Stenger, a retired physics prof from the University of Hawaii, has given us two books that explain both atheism and “multiverses”, and behold, they are one. Few other proponents of multiverses are quite as forthcoming with their logic, but clearly something besides data must motivate the science of multiverses, because by definition multiverses are not observable. Stenger makes the connection explicit, whereas Hawking or Susskind is a little more coy with their metaphysics. Multiverse-theory is designed for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to defend atheism. It makes no predictions, it gives no insight, it provides no control, it produces no technology, it advances no mathematics, it is a science in name only, because it is really metaphysics.

In Stenger’s first book, G-d: the failed hypothesis, he argues that Science is an independent and more reliable way to truth than metaphysics. And in his second book, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, he argues that metaphysics (multiverse theory) is a more reliable guide than science (design-detection). With these two books then, we can get anything we want, except ethics. And metaphysics. And science.

Read more…

Comments
Elizabeth; And should not a infinite, personal, God who is, according to your own reasoning, best expressed as love, not save us from death??? ================== First to note the ‘irreconcilable problem’ that mathematicians have in unifying General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics; Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6597379/ ,,,Though the physicists/mathematicians, in the preceding video, feel they are at a dead end in reconciling General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, I would like to put forth the case that Jesus Christ, Himself, as strange as it may sound, is the most parsimonious solution to the number one problem in science today. The problem of the unification of Quantum Mechanics(QM) and General Relativity(GR)into a ‘theory of everything’. As noted in the video, the unification of QM and GR, into a ‘theory of everything’, has been a notoriously difficult problem for physicists and mathematicians to solve. In fact, Einstein himself spent many of the last years of his life on earth vainly searching for a solution to the QM-GR split. Moreover, the subsequent years of persistent search, by many leading, brilliant, physicists and mathematicians in the world, have not yielded any plausible solution to the problem that has not involved highly speculative, ‘verification-less’, appeals to string theoretic multiverses, M-Theories, Quantum Gravity etc.. etc.. The problem shows no experimental support of ever abating,,, Quantum Mechanics Not In Jeopardy: Physicists Confirm Decades-Old Key Principle Experimentally – July 2010 Excerpt: the research group led by Prof. Gregor Weihs from the University of Innsbruck and the University of Waterloo has confirmed the accuracy of Born’s law in a triple-slit experiment (as opposed to the double slit experiment). “The existence of third-order interference terms would have tremendous theoretical repercussions – it would shake quantum mechanics to the core,” says Weihs. The impetus for this experiment was the suggestion made by physicists to generalize either quantum mechanics or gravitation – the two pillars of modern physics – to achieve unification, thereby arriving at a one all-encompassing theory. “Our experiment thwarts these efforts once again,” explains Gregor Weihs. (of note: Born’s Law is an axiom that dictates that quantum interference can only occur between pairs of probabilities, not triplet or higher order probabilities. If they would have detected higher order interference patterns this would have potentially allowed a reformulation of quantum mechanics that is compatible with, or even incorporates, gravitation.) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100722142640.htm Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law: Peter Woit, a PhD. in theoretical physics and a lecturer in mathematics at Columbia, points out—again and again—that string theory, despite its two decades of dominance, is just a hunch aspiring to be a theory. It hasn’t predicted anything, as theories are required to do, and its practitioners have become so desperate, says Woit, that they’re willing to redefine what doing science means in order to justify their labors. http://www.amazon.com/Not-Even-Wrong-Failure-Physical/dp/0465092756 ‘What is referred to as M-theory isn’t even a theory. It’s a collection of ideas, hopes, aspirations. It’s not even a theory and I think the book is a bit misleading in that respect. It gives you the impression that here is this new theory which is going to explain everything. It is nothing of the sort. It is not even a theory and certainly has no observational (evidence),,, I think the book suffers rather more strongly than many (other books). It’s not a uncommon thing in popular descriptions of science to latch onto some idea, particularly things to do with string theory, which have absolutely no support from observations.,,, They are very far from any kind of observational (testability). Yes, they (the ideas of M-theory) are hardly science.” – Roger Penrose – former close colleague of Stephen Hawking – in critique of Hawking’s new book ‘The Grand Design’ the exact quote in the following video clip: Roger Penrose Debunks Stephen Hawking’s New Book ‘The Grand Design’ – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5278793/ ,,,The main problem, mathematically, for the split, between GR and QM, seems to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the ‘zero/infinity’ conflict that arises in different places of each framework;,,, THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY Excerpt: What the two theories have in common – and what they clash over – is zero.”,, “The infinite zero of a black hole — mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely — punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.”,, “Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm ,,,One of the things I find interesting about the preceding zero/infinity mystery, of QM and GR, is that the ‘infinity’ of the 4-Dimensional space-time of General Relativity is related to black holes in the universe. The reason this is interesting for me is because black holes are now verified to be, by far, the largest contributors of ‘entropic decay’ in the universe;,,,, Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010 Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated. http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe Moreover, Black Hole singularities are completely opposite the singularity of the Big Bang in terms of the ordered physics of entropic thermodynamics. In other words, Black Holes are singularities of destruction and disorder rather than singularities of creation and order. Roger Penrose – How Special Was The Big Bang? “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.” ,,,Moreover, besides entropy being the primary reason why the universe, without ‘supernatural intervention, is steadfastly heading for ‘entropic heat death’,,, The Future of the Universe Excerpt: After all the black holes have evaporated, (and after all the ordinary matter made of protons has disintegrated, if protons are unstable), the universe will be nearly empty. Photons, neutrinos, electrons and positrons will fly from place to place, hardly ever encountering each other. It will be cold, and dark, and there is no known process which will ever change things. — Not a happy ending. http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/future/future.html ,,,entropy is also the primary reason why we will all grow old and eventually die,,, 80 years in 40 seconds – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9wToWdXaQg ,,,Thus ‘Death’, itself, of the universe and of us, seems to semi-directly linked to the fact that this ‘inaccessible infinity of destruction’ is found in black holes. At least it seems readily apparent that black holes are forever an ‘inaccessible infinity of destruction’ as far as the endeavors of mortal man are to be concerned. Yet Quantum Mechanic offers its own unique infinity that can, in principle, counterbalance the ‘destructive infinity’ of Black holes (as they tried to accomplish in the video). Yet the problem that QM has in overcoming the entropic decay of the universe, besides the problem mentioned by Michio Kaku in the video of at about the 7:00 minute mark of a ‘repeating infinity’, is, as mentioned previously, this,,, “Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge.” ,,,thus it seems readily apparent that QM requires a ‘space’ within the 4-D space-time of General Relativity, separate from the zero point infinity of Black holes, in which to ‘pour its infinity’. That is QM needs this space separate from the Black Holes if the destructive, ‘Death Causing’, entropic infinities of Black Holes were ever to be successfully overcome by Quantum Mechanics. And if physics were ever to be ‘unified’ into a ‘theory of everything’. And indeed, subtle, yet strong, hints that this ‘unification’ is possible are now available,,,, Scientific Evidence That Mind Effects Matter – Random Number Generators – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4198007 ,,,I once asked a evolutionist, after showing him the preceding experiment, “Since you ultimately believe that the ‘god of random chance’ produced everything we see around us, what in the world is my mind doing pushing your god around?”,,,bornagain77
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
ba77, I am neither a theoretical physicist nor a cosmologist, so I am simply not equipped to evaluate the arguments for and against multiverse theories for myself. If you are, and you are convinced that the evidence does not support multiverse theories, then fine. I simply do not know - I am not ignoring the evidence it is simply outside my domain of expertise (by a long way!) I have no axe to grind for either universes or multiverses. I'm happy to accept whatever turns out to be the best supported model. As far as the ontological argument for God goes, I don't think it works. And because I don't think it works, I don't think multiverses or anything else can demonstrate or not, the existence of God. I think God is a perfectly viable proposition, as the answer to the question "why is there anything rather than nothing?" The big question to me, as I tried to explain to PaV on another thread, is whether the answer to that question has anything to do with the way we live our lives. Myself, I think the answer drops out of the math and leaves us with love. I'm happy with that. I'm happy even to call it God.Elizabeth Liddle
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT
Lizzie, "But my main point is that I don’t see what the big deal is. Why would multiverses be incompatible with God?" Multiverses, if they exist aren't incompatible with God. Where did you get that idea? They just aren't needed if God exists. If God does not exist, they are apparently needed. I think it has something to do with increasing the probabilistic resources for a chance/necessity scenario for the genesis of life, coupled with a need to explain away the uniqueness of finely tuned habitable zones. I doubt if we would have any multiverse theories if there were not first a Darwinian theory, and increased genuine doubts about it's probabilistic resources.CannuckianYankee
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
Whereas, Theists actually do have evidence for ‘higher dimensions of space and time,, The weight of mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. Yet, mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light, because, from our non-speed of light perspective, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for the mass going the speed of light. Whereas conversely, if mass could travel at the speed of light, its size will stay the same while all other frames of reference not traveling the speed of light will disappear from its sight. Special Relativity – Time Dilation and Length Contraction – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSRIyDfo_mY Moreover time, as we understand it, would come to a complete stop at the speed of light. To grasp the whole ‘time coming to a complete stop at the speed of light’ concept a little more easily, imagine moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light. Would not the hands on the clock stay stationary as you moved away from the face of the clock at the speed of light? Moving away from the face of a clock at the speed of light happens to be the same ‘thought experiment’ that gave Einstein his breakthrough insight into e=mc2. Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight Into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ video http://www.metacafe.com/w/6545941/ ,,,Yet, even though light has this ‘eternal’ attribute in regards to our temporal framework of time, for us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, will still only get us to first base as far as quantum entanglement, or teleportation, is concerned. Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182 That is to say, traveling at the speed of light will only get us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, ‘past and future folding into now’, framework of time. This higher dimension, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is warranted because light is not ‘frozen within time’ yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. “I’ve just developed a new theory of eternity.” Albert Einstein – The Einstein Factor – Reader’s Digest “The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass.” Richard Swenson – More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12 Experimental confirmation of Time Dilation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation#Experimental_confirmation It is very interesting to note that this strange higher dimensional, eternal, framework for time, found in special relativity, finds corroboration in Near Death Experience testimonies: ‘In the ‘spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it’s going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.’ Mickey Robinson – Near Death Experience testimony ‘When you die, you enter eternity. It feels like you were always there, and you will always be there. You realize that existence on Earth is only just a brief instant.’ Dr. Ken Ring – has extensively studied Near Death Experiences It is also very interesting to point out that the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’, reported in many Near Death Experiences(NDEs), is also corroborated by Special Relativity when considering the optical effects for traveling at the speed of light. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel as an observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many Near Death Experiences: Traveling At The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/ The NDE and the Tunnel – Kevin Williams’ research conclusions Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer) Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/ Also, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, yet, and this is a very big ‘yet’ to take note of; this ‘timeless’ travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. Yet, in quantum teleportation of information, the ‘time not passing’, i.e. ‘eternal’, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but is also ‘instantaneously’ achieved in our temporal framework. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus ‘pure transcendent information’ is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which ‘It’ resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned). “An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality” Akiane – Child Prodigy Logic also dictates ‘a decision’ must have been made, by the ‘transcendent, eternal, infinite information’ from the primary timeless (eternal) reality ‘It’ inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive by yet another line of evidence besides the necessity for a ‘first mover’ to explain quantum wave collapse. The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being – William Lane Craig – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914 As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler’s footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is ‘information’. “It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom – at a very deep bottom, in most instances – an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin.” John Archibald Wheeler Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word.” Anton Zeilinger – a leading expert in quantum teleportation:bornagain77
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
And once again Elizabeth, I point out that the multiverse has no evidence for its reality; https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-multiverse-gods-part-1/#comment-386192 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-multiverse-gods-part-1/#comment-386203bornagain77
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, your papers skirt the proof laid out by Borde-Guth-Vilenkin. The paper shows that ANY UNIVERSE which is experiencing 'inflating space-time' must have an absolute beginning, thus once again bringing us to a transcendent (above space and time) origin of the multiverse; ‘When cosmologists talk about “the multiverse,” it’s a slightly poetic term. We really just mean different regions of spacetime, far away so that we can’t observe them, but nevertheless still part of what one might reasonably want to call “the universe.”‘ - Sean Carroll - CalTech physicist https://uncommondescent.com/cosmology/many-worlds-theory-many-interpretations/ You then ask; 'But my main point is that I don’t see what the big deal is. Why would multiverses be incompatible with God?' Actually, if multiverses were real, which my main point is that atheists have no evidence whatsoever that they are real, it would, as I pointed out here,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-multiverse-gods-part-1/#comment-386194 ,,, concede the necessary premise to the ontological argument, and thus undermine the atheistic worldview from within,,, Conclusion of Ontological argument; “God then is the Being that couldn’t possibly not exit.” Ontological Argument – Dr. Plantinga (3:50 minute mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXvVcWFrGQbornagain77
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
ba77: thank you for the direct link to the Borde et al (2003) paper. However, I'm not sure why you think it supports the case against multiple universes. What do you understand their conclusion to be? Also, the authors themselves don't seem to think so, nor other cosmologists, judging from their later papers, and citing papers: http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v76/i12/e123512 http://iopscience.iop.org/1475-7516/2009/01/021 http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4141v5.pdf But my main point is that I don't see what the big deal is. Why would multiverses be incompatible with God?Elizabeth Liddle
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
Elizabeth states: 'You don’t get a paper into Nature because it supports atheism. You get a paper into nature because it makes sense, or has the potential to make sense, of the data. What private, or even public, theological conclusions you draw are irrelevant to the criteria by which we judge the model as science.' ,,,And the 'Theological concerns' of Nature are above reproach??? 'Many of the early editions of Nature consisted of articles written by members of a group that called itself the X Club, a group of scientists known for having liberal, progressive, and somewhat controversial scientific beliefs relative to the time period.[9] Initiated by Thomas Henry Huxley, the group consisted of such important scientists as Joseph Dalton Hooker, Herbert Spencer, and John Tyndall, along with another five scientists and mathematicians; these scientists were all avid supporters of Darwin’s theory of evolution as common descent, a theory which, during the latter-half of the 19th century, received a great deal of criticism among more conservative groups of scientists' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29 Not to mention the theological concerns of Charles Darwin himself??? Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011 http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo046391.html From Philosopher to Science Writer: The Dissemination of Evolutionary Thought - May 2011 Excerpt: The powerful theory of evolution hangs on this framework of thought that mandates naturalism. The science is weak but the metaphysics are strong. This is the key to understanding evolutionary thought. The weak arguments are scientific and the strong arguments, though filled with empirical observation and scientific jargon, are metaphysical. The stronger the argument, the more theological or philosophical. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/05/from-philosopher-to-science-writer.html Nor the 'theological concerns' of present day Darwinists??? Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIzdieauxZg Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA - video http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/francis_collins_is_one_of040361.htmlbornagain77
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
H'mm:
We do not reject the possibility of things that are possible :) We test them. That’s how science works.
And, how can a multiverse be tested, especially given the problem of independent manifolds? Wat was that again about ideas that are out of the realm of empirical test and criteria for being scientific? GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT
Nullsalus:
On the other hand I am capable of reading the arguments of those who make a convincing argument that multiverses may be possible.
Ah, possibility. Lowest of the low bars.
Absolutely. We do not reject the possibility of things that are possible :) We test them. That's how science works.
So, you’ve met a few cosmologists and read a couple of books, and on that basis you’re almost certain that atheism or a desire to avoid inferences to God plays no role?
Yes, fairly certain.
So, if I’ve met a few cosmologists and read a couple of books, and picked up from those experiences that there’s a desire to avoid any inference to God, I’d be justified in saying it’s “almost certain” that atheism is a motivator behind multiverse speculations?
I'm not talking about "speculations", Nullasalus. I'm talking about people whose life's work is figuring out the math, deriving testable hypotheses, and testing them. If someone like Hawking or Stenger want to make theological inferences, they are welcome. I think they are theologically inept. Paul Davies is an example of someone who at least brings some theological and philosophical insight to the table. Anyway, obviously we will have to agree to differ on this. Perhaps the cosmologists you have met and read are indeed motivated by a desire to avoid a theological inference. It seems a pretty flimsy motivation for such hard work to me, but perhaps you are right. Nevertheless, the important part about science is not what motivates it, but what it actually demonstrates. We should not decide on whether multiverses are likely or not on the basis of whether we like the conclusion - whether it suits our theological or atheological position, but whether it is well supported by argument and evidence. I assume you agree with that at least.
Which multiverses wouldn’t satisfy anyway. Stenger disagrees. Weinberg disagrees. Numerous atheists and physicists disagree, insofar as they think that multiverses – if nothing else – knock down an argument or a reason to infer God.
Well, they are silly, then. Aren't they? If someone demonstrated to you tomorrow that multiverse theory explained cosmological data better than universe theory, would you cease to believe in God? It certainly wouldn't make one iota of difference to me.
So I take it you’d agree that if an atheist or atheist physicist thinks that the multiverse does away for an argument or inference for God, that would be grounds to question their motivations, eh?
Not really. The great thing about science is that the criteria for hypothesis is not whether the conclusion is one you like, but whether it makes sense - provides us with a model that better fits our data. You don't get a paper into Nature because it supports atheism. You get a paper into nature because it makes sense, or has the potential to make sense, of the data. What private, or even public, theological conclusions you draw are irrelevant to the criteria by which we judge the model as science.Elizabeth Liddle
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
Mung, perhaps you would care to take the knife out of my back once you put it in???bornagain77
June 25, 2011
June
06
Jun
25
25
2011
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT
Exactly who is using a double standard in all this mung???
Not you, Ba77. A double standard would require standard, right? peaceMung
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT
Mung, apparently your tongue was loose enough to insinuate I've been less that forthright with the evidence towards Elizabeth and was using a 'double standard' in all this. Just look at this thread mung!!! Note how evidence after evidence has been presented to Elizabeth all to be ignored, never was any addressed directly, save for a passing 'sniff' that it was 'suspect'. Please note this particular quote from Elizabeth: 'On the other hand I am capable of reading the arguments of those who make a convincing argument that multiverses may be possible.' Exactly who is using a double standard in all this mung???bornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
BA77, I'm choosing to bite my tongue. :)Mung
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
Mung you state: 'Double standard! He let me pay for it.' And where exactly have I practiced a 'double standard' as far as evidence is concerned??? I take very seriously any evidence that purports to compromise ID and expect the same type of respect for evidence presented against neo-Darwinism and its subordinate theories such as multiverses etc.. i.e. Why should I give respect for a position without any evidence when none is given for a position with evidence???,,, and please do not confuse my lack of respect for Elizabeth's 'scientific' views with her personally, for I do indeed respect how clever she is trying to make 'imagination' plausible. C.S. Lewis: creationist and anti-evolutionist Excerpt: "In 1951 C S Lewis wrote that evolution was “the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives” and modern civilization. Evolution, Lewis explained, is a picture of reality that has resulted from imagination and is “not the logical result of what is vaguely called ‘modern science’.” http://creation.com/c-s-lewisbornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
Sorry Elizabeth. Feel free to ignore that last post. I see that the subject has already been raised by others.Mung
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
My point was that arguing that atheism is the sole motivation for multiverse hypotheses is just silly. It’s almost certainly not a motivation at all...
Then how do you explain people like Stenger? It almost certainly is a motivation.Mung
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, if you want my respect you have to earn it.
Double standard! He let me pay for it.Mung
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
If this were my bargaining table, I would gladly concede multiverse theory as science in return for general acceptance of ID as science. And that would be generous. The false claim against ID (that it looks for answers beyond the boundaries of observable reality) is entirely true of multiverse theory. Why doesn't anyone get fired or denied tenure for suggesting that we may be surrounded by parallel universes? Why isn't anyone ridiculed for implying that there might actually be a Bizarro world? What is the standard? For what very, very little it is worth, Elizabeth, I understand what you're saying.ScottAndrews
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT
Elizabeth here is a song for you that reflects your tendency to choose imaginary conjectures over evidence: Cornflake Girl (UK Version) - Tori Amos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXVjWTxvYVQ and perhaps this: Strong Enough " HQ. Sheryl Crow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bxE3W1RTz8 verse of note: Lie to me, I promise I'll believe,,,bornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
I guess because I meet cosmologists from time to time, and I read books about their theories (have you read Steinhart and Turok’s book?), and it seems clear to me that what motivates them is a burning curiosity to find more about the world, not some desire to avoid a theistic conclusion. So, you've met a few cosmologists and read a couple of books, and on that basis you're almost certain that atheism or a desire to avoid inferences to God plays no role? So, if I've met a few cosmologists and read a couple of books, and picked up from those experiences that there's a desire to avoid any inference to God, I'd be justified in saying it's "almost certain" that atheism is a motivator behind multiverse speculations? Which multiverses wouldn’t satisfy anyway. Stenger disagrees. Weinberg disagrees. Numerous atheists and physicists disagree, insofar as they think that multiverses - if nothing else - knock down an argument or a reason to infer God. So I take it you'd agree that if an atheist or atheist physicist thinks that the multiverse does away for an argument or inference for God, that would be grounds to question their motivations, eh?nullasalus
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT
Elizabeth you state: 'On the other hand I am capable of reading the arguments of those who make a convincing argument that multiverses may be possible' Again I ask for the knockdown experiment which makes the multiverse convincing for you;,, Whereas I have already presented evidence against such; https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-multiverse-gods-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-386192 as did nullasalus here; https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-multiverse-gods-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-386203 and I can present much more;bornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:11 PM
4
04
11
PM
PDT
On the other hand I am capable of reading the arguments of those who make a convincing argument that multiverses may be possible. Ah, possibility. Lowest of the low bars.nullasalus
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete – Borde-Guth-Vilenkin – 2003 Excerpt: inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012bornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
Nullasalus: I guess because I meet cosmologists from time to time, and I read books about their theories (have you read Steinhart and Turok's book?), and it seems clear to me that what motivates them is a burning curiosity to find more about the world, not some desire to avoid a theistic conclusion. Which multiverses wouldn't satisfy anyway.Elizabeth Liddle
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
Ba77: I simply am not qualified to refute or endorse the formal proof of Borde-Guth-Vilenkin, especially as I have no access to it, and most of your links are videos. On the other hand I am capable of reading the arguments of those who make a convincing argument that multiverses may be possible. So I have no choice but to remain open-minded on the subject. And I remain perplexed as to what you can possibly think my position actually is, given your tone. What on earth do you think I think?Elizabeth Liddle
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:02 PM
4
04
02
PM
PDT
What I’m saying is that the desire to refute theism almost certainly plays no part in the motivation of the people who pursue research in that domain. Wonderful. And you know this how, this 'almost certainly' claim? I cited an article which explicitly pitted God and the multiverse against each other, complete with a quote to the effect of 'If you don't want God, then you better have a multiverse'. We have Victor Stenger, and outspoken atheist and (apparently retired) physicist, writing a book using the multiverse as a means to beat back God (and better yet, to argue that science proves God doesn't exist.) I could go on. You, so far, have just repeated that 'almost certainly' the desire to avoid inferences to God play no role. (As for people 'pursuing research in that domain' - what research? I quoted Ellis to the effect that research is not possible, unless you radically redefine what counts as research. Which, I suppose, is always one option - if multiverse speculations don't count as science, well then, maybe the definition of science needs to be changed, eh?)nullasalus
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, it does not matter one iota that you 'think' that the sources are not crushing to the eternal multiverse conjecture. What matters is that you have not formally refuted the formal proof of Borde-Guth-Vilenkin. Once again why should I even care what you think when you refuse to honestly address the evidence presented to you??? Like I said before Elizabeth, THIS AIN"T 'Science by Elizabeth' i.e. this is not a rabbit hole world where you are free to make up the rules as you go!!bornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
Well, ba77, I don't think your sources are "crushing to the 'eternal' multiverse conjecture", and even if they were, it wouldn't bother me one way or the other. And nullasalus: I'm not saying that some atheists don't make hay over the idea of multiverses, but if they do, they are silly, because multiverses are no threat to theism. What I'm saying is that the desire to refute theism almost certainly plays no part in the motivation of the people who pursue research in that domain.Elizabeth Liddle
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
Elizabeth you accused me of having 'suspect sources', yet you still did not address the fact that the sources I listed preceding your post were crushing to the 'eternal' multiverse conjecture; What should i care what you believe the implications are to the evidence when you refuse to even address evidence in the first place???bornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply