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
It’s almost certainly not a motivation at all, and, even if it were, it would be sillier still, because there’s no reason to assume that God made only one universe. The evidence that it's a motive for some prominent atheists is considerable, and 'no reason to assume' is a theological claim. People with different theological views will see it differently - which is of course the point. Your "almost certainly" is almost certainly unsupported. Really, this is as ridiculous as the claim that no atheists wish to promote atheism, because if we twist definitions and bend over backwards enough atheism is mere lack of belief (such that pickles and rocks are atheists), and no one has a motivation to spread a lack of belief. Whereby groups like American Atheists become some inexplicable enigma.nullasalus
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
03:35 PM
3
03
35
PM
PDT
ba77L
Elizabeth, you state: ‘I find your argument incoherent, some of your sources suspect, and others unsupportive of your position.’ And yet you still don’t present any knockdown evidence for your multiverse position, whereas I have laid out many evidences. In fact the post directly preceding your post, on my ‘suspect sources’, lists the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin proof for a absolute beginning. ,,, Do you find their proof suspect, or do you simply ignore it because it disagrees with your preferred worldview??? And that is just one example out of countless examples of how i’ve seen you handle evidence contrary to your worldview. No Elizabeth, if you want my respect you have to earn it.
ba77: I sometimes wonder whether you even read my posts! I don't have "a multiverse position". I'm not a physicist, I wouldn't be able to argue one way or the other. 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, and, even if it were, it would be sillier still, because there's no reason to assume that God made only one universe. So far from clinging to an unevidenced hypothesis to support an atheistic worldview, I don't cling to any such thing, and it wouldn't support an atheistic worldview if I did, whether or not I wanted one, which I don't!Elizabeth Liddle
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT
Actually Scott, there actually are experiments to the spidy-batman conflict Batman vs Spiderman Stop Motion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8C9B5798XYbornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
It's curious how the most intelligent, educated people can get caught up in such silly speculation. It's like arguing who would win between Spiderman and Batman except with advanced mathematics. It reminds me of Plato, a respected advocate of the immortality of the soul. Wise as he may have been, how could he or anyone else think he was in a position to know what he claimed to, or that they could figure it out by thinking real hard? This is very similar. Smart people have come to believe that their calculations and theories on top of theories lead to some unobservable truth, and the more they talk about it the more credible it seems. But there's nothing there. It's pointless.ScottAndrews
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT
Elizabeth, you state: 'I find your argument incoherent, some of your sources suspect, and others unsupportive of your position.' And yet you still don't present any knockdown evidence for your multiverse position, whereas I have laid out many evidences. In fact the post directly preceding your post, on my 'suspect sources', lists the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin proof for a absolute beginning. ,,, Do you find their proof suspect, or do you simply ignore it because it disagrees with your preferred worldview??? And that is just one example out of countless examples of how i've seen you handle evidence contrary to your worldview. No Elizabeth, if you want my respect you have to earn it.bornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
02:12 PM
2
02
12
PM
PDT
ba77:
Elizabeth, when you actually make a coherent argument backed by solid empirics, then you will earn my respect that you are posting in good faith, and not before.
You mean that if you find an argument incoherent you assume that the poster is not arguing in good faith? ba77, I confess, I find your argument incoherent, some of your sources suspect, and others unsupportive of your position. And yet I assume you are posting in good faith. It's possible.Elizabeth Liddle
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT
Moreover, even granting the multiverse to materialists, which they have no persuasive evidence for, there is another line of evidence(proof actually), besides the ontological argument, which undermines the materialistic worldview from within: Refutation Of The Many World's Hypothesis - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784630/ "The prediction of the standard model that the universe began to exist remains today as secure as ever—indeed, more secure, in light of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and that prediction’s corroboration by the repeated and often imaginative attempts to falsify it. The person who believes that the universe began to exist remains solidly and comfortably within mainstream science." - William Lane Craig http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6115 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/0110012 "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can long longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - Many Worlds In One - Pg. 176 "The conclusion is that past-eternal inflation is impossible without a beginning." Alexander Vilenkin - from pg. 35 'New Proofs for the Existence of God' by Robert J. Spitzer (of note: A elegant thought experiment of a space traveler traveling to another galaxy, that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin, used to illustrate the validity of the proof, is on pg. 35 of the book as well.) Formal Proof For The Transcendent Origin Of the Universe - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4170233 Genesis 1:1-3 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. Carrie Underwood with Vince Gill How Great thou Art - 720P HD - Standing Ovation! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLLMzr3PFgkbornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
As to tiny fluctuations in the Cosmic Background Radiation (CMBR), once again this is evidence of extreme fine tuning for the transcendent origin of the universe; ,,,1992: Nasa's COBE satellite team discovered the predicted "ripples" in the cosmic background radiation. The Big Bang theory had predicted that the background radiation should be very slightly "rippled" (showing fluctuations of atCosmic background radiation supports intelligent design least one part in 100,000) if it is to account for the slight inhomogeneity that had to be present at the beginning of the universe. Rationale: given that galaxies today are organized in clusters rather than evenly distributed throughout the universe, this same sort of unevenness had to be present at the beginning as well. View the left over background radiation images from the COBE satellite at: http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/cobe/COBE_Home/DMR_Images.html On April 24, 1992, astrophysicist George Smoot announced that the COBE satellite had measured the expected "ripples" in the microwave background radiation. Fluctuations measured were about 1 part in 90,000; or to be precise, 11 +/- 3 parts per million. They were clearly distinguishable from noise, and newspapers all over the world carried Smoot's quote: "If you're religious, it's like looking at God." http://www.evidencetobelieve.net/evidence_of_design.htm Quotes of Note as to CMBR; The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=3594 “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE “,,,the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world,,, the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same.” Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’ ,,, 'And if your curious about how Genesis 1, in particular, fairs. Hey, we look at the Days in Genesis as being long time periods, which is what they must be if you read the Bible consistently, and the Bible scores 4 for 4 in Initial Conditions and 10 for 10 on the Creation Events' Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere; video Prof. Henry F. Schaefer cites several interesting quotes, from leading scientists in the field of Big Bang cosmology, about the Theological implications of the Big Bang in the following video: The Big Bang and the God of the Bible - Henry Schaefer PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5222493 Entire video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSThtmA1J_U "The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude." Prof. Henry F. Schaefer - closing statement of part 5 of preceding video further notes: Beyond The Big Bang: William Lane Craig Templeton Foundation Lecture (HQ) 1/6 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esqGaLSWgNc The Scientific Evidence For The Big Bang - Michael Strauss PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323668 Evidence Supporting the Big Bang http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htmbornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
10:47 AM
10
10
47
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, when you actually make a coherent argument backed by solid empirics, then you will earn my respect that you are posting in good faith, and not before.bornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
The multiverse is a prediction of chaotic inflation theory. The tiny fluctuations predicted by chaotic inflation theory are evidenced in the Wmap data.Driver
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
Well, I don't agree, ba77. To be honest, it seems to me that you have ignored most of the points I have made. We do seem to be talking past each other. It happens. All I ask is that you do me the honour of assuming that I am posting in good faith. I do make that assumption of you.Elizabeth Liddle
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, I look at your actions and not your words. You have ignored, or superficially rationalized away, all evidence presented to you not only on this thread but practically every thread you have commented on! You HAVE NOT EVER honestly addressed the evidence as far as I can tell!!! Though you find offense that I would call you on such 'shallowness of science' really matters not one iota to me as far as the empirical evidence itself is concerned. I am strictly concerned with what the evidence is actually indicating to us, certainly not in any shallow philosophy of science that you, or any other person who is adverse to theism, might present!!! As Sargent Joe Friday would say: Just The Facts Ma'am!!bornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
I don’t see it as a dodge at all. Your last (quoted) sentence doesn’t present exclusive alternatives. A multiverse could be the work of God, presumably, just as much as a universe could.
1. It is the characteristics of this universe that demand an explanation. 2. As Sheldon points out, the cure may be worse than the disease.Mung
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
10:07 AM
10
10
07
AM
PDT
Well, I submit, ba77, that you haven't taken due account of the evidence before you :) I place no priority at all on a "non-theistic view" as should have been really clear to you by now. I don't even readily call myself an atheist now, and was a happy theist for 50 years. As for evidence - well I'm a scientist, and I give evidence a very high priority, both by temperament and by training. I agree that we seem to have a very different way of evaluating evidence, but I do not impugn your integrity - I know that it is possible for honest people to come to different views, given different samplings of evidence and/or different evaluations of that evidence. I suggest that you at least give that possibility some thought. People can disagree without either being dishonest, even about evidence. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, I've seen enough of you 'methodology of science' to know that evidence is of very low priority, whereas your non-theistic view is of very high priority.bornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Nullasalus
Incidentally, saying effectively ‘the multiverse theory isn’t motivated by a desire to avoid God, it’s motivated by a desire to explain some of what’s been observed in cosmology’ is a bit of a dodge. Well, of course a multiverse is proposed to explain what’s observed in cosmology – and so too would be, in this case, God. Clearly at least some scientists and science writers think this competition is, in fact, in play. “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many.”
I don't see it as a dodge at all. Your last (quoted) sentence doesn't present exclusive alternatives. A multiverse could be the work of God, presumably, just as much as a universe could. No?Elizabeth Liddle
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
05:21 AM
5
05
21
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, this ain’t ‘Science according to Elizabeth’; there are to posibble explanation, and only two possible explanations. Either the universe was designed or it was not. That you would be so biased as to try to worm your preconceived conclusion into plausibility, with absolutely no empirical support, has lowered what was already my low respect for your integrity towards empirical science!!!
I do wish you wouldn't do this, ba77! You must know by now that I have no "preconceived conclusion". I've made it really really clear that what I am saying is that I I do not think we can conclude anything, one way or the other, about God from science How can that possibly be "worm[ing my] preconceived conclusion into plausibility"? And what is this about "low respect for [my] integrity?" It seems to me that you are forming a very odd impression of me from reading into my posts stuff that I don't actually put there! And don't even think! Oh well. Communication is an odd thing. But, FWIW, though I may (and do) have my faults, lack of honesty (or integrity) isn't notably one of them. Perhaps one day I might convince you of that :) Peace LizzieElizabeth Liddle
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
Once again, I point out that materialists do not have any persuasive evidence for their multiverse conjectures, whereas the Theist does have solid empirical evidence for his posited 'higher dimensional origination' of the universe; notes; Sean Carrol’s quote here: ‘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.”‘ (By this comment, ‘different regions of spacetime’, I take Carrol to mean different regions of the temporal spacetime of General Relativity) Yet, despite the materialists not having any evidence for ‘different regions of spacetime’, 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 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
Incidentally, saying effectively 'the multiverse theory isn't motivated by a desire to avoid God, it's motivated by a desire to explain some of what's been observed in cosmology' is a bit of a dodge. Well, of course a multiverse is proposed to explain what's observed in cosmology - and so too would be, in this case, God. Clearly at least some scientists and science writers think this competition is, in fact, in play. "Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many."nullasalus
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:39 AM
4
04
39
AM
PDT
correction; there are two possible explanationbornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:35 AM
4
04
35
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, this ain't 'Science according to Elizabeth'; there are to posibble explanation, and only two possible explanations. Either the universe was designed or it was not. That you would be so biased as to try to worm your preconceived conclusion into plausibility, with absolutely no empirical support, has lowered what was already my low respect for your integrity towards empirical science!!!bornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:34 AM
4
04
34
AM
PDT
All cosmological data, essentially. So how about explaining what it is about this data that leads us to conclude the multiverse? Assuring us that the people inferring a multiverse have cosmological data in mind doesn't do much. As for multiverse predictions being tested at the LHC, Peter Woit has some views on that: "They promote the idea that such a thing would be a “Messenger From the Multiverse”, the idea being that if supersymmetry doesn’t explain the hierarchy problem, the explanation must be the anthropic landscape: That powerful piece of evidence would have dizzying implications. “It would be a strong indication that there is a string landscape or a multiverse,” says Dimopoulos. “I think the majority of opinion would come around to that point of view.” One aspect of this argument is that it also works if no gluino is seen. If no superpartners at all are found at the LHC, and thus supersymmetry can’t explain the hierarchy problem, by the Arkani-Hamed/Dimopoulos logic this is strong evidence for the anthropic string theory landscape. Putting this together with Lykken’s argument, the LHC is guaranteed to provide evidence for string theory no matter what, since it will either see or not see weak-scale supersymmetry." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=717 Likewise, George Ellis in a January 2011 edition of Nature had this to say (Article: The Untestable Multiverse): So one can motivate multiverse hypotheses as plausible, but they are not observationally or experimentally testable — and never will be. It is easy to support your favourite model over others because no one can prove you wrong — you can simply adjust its parameters to fit the latest information. If the Universe is a simulation (option eight), then anything is possible. However, the existence of a computer allowing such a simulation is not remotely feasible. Scientists are beginning to confuse science with science fiction. Greene, to his credit, devotes a chapter to the question of whether the multiverse idea is a scientific theory or not. He believes it is, and even supports the extravagant claim that infinities exist — infinite numbers of universes hosting countless galaxies. This leads to well-known paradoxes, such as the infinite repetition of everything because of the finiteness of possibilities. But again, there is no way to test it, because infinity is always beyond reach — and so will not plausibly exist in physical reality, as mathematician David Hilbert argued. The gap in current theories that warrants pursuing such untestable theories is our inability to predict firmly why physical constants have the values they do. If a fundamental theory were to be proposed that explained them, the drive for a multiverse explanation would fall away. But the puzzle of why these values allow life would remain. The multiverse argument is a well-founded philosophical proposal but, as it cannot be tested, it does not belong fully in the scientific fold. Read The Hidden Reality with enjoyment, but beware its misleading title. Greene is not presenting aspects of a known reality; he is telling of unproven theoretical possibilities.nullasalus
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
All Of Creation - Mercyme - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkdniYsUrM8bornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle, EXACTLY where is your evidence besides just in your imagination??? Give me the knockdown experiment that says 'This is concrete proof of a multiverse!!! Everything you listed falls under fine-tuning and is far more parsimonious to Theism than materialism!!! As to our 'centrality', that is Theistic to the core in its implications also!!!,,, notes ,,, First I noticed that the earth demonstrates centrality in the universe in this video Dr. Dembski posted a while back; The Known Universe - Dec. 2009 - a very cool video (please note the centrality of the earth in the universe) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U ,,, for a while I tried to see if the 4-D space-time of General Relativity was sufficient to explain centrality we witness for the earth in the universe,,, 4-Dimensional Space-Time Of General Relativity - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3991873/ ,,, yet I kept running into the same problem for establishing the sufficiency of General Relativity to explain our centrality in this universe, in that every time I would perform a 'mental experiment' of trying radically different points of observation in the universe, General Relativity would fail to maintain centrality for the radically different point of observation in the universe. The primary reason for this failure of General Relativity to maintain centrality, for different points of observation in the universe, is due to the fact that there are limited (10^80) material particles to work with. Though this failure of General Relativity was obvious to me, I needed more proof so as to establish it more rigorously, so i dug around a bit and found this; The Cauchy Problem In General Relativity - Igor Rodnianski Excerpt: 2.2 Large Data Problem In General Relativity - While the result of Choquet-Bruhat and its subsequent refinements guarantee the existence and uniqueness of a (maximal) Cauchy development, they provide no information about its geodesic completeness and thus, in the language of partial differential equations, constitutes a local existence. ,,, More generally, there are a number of conditions that will guarantee the space-time will be geodesically incomplete.,,, In the language of partial differential equations this means an impossibility of a large data global existence result for all initial data in General Relativity. http://www.icm2006.org/proceedings/Vol_III/contents/ICM_Vol_3_22.pdf and also 'serendipitously' found this,,, THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: Gödel's personal God is under no obligation to behave in a predictable orderly fashion, and Gödel produced what may be the most damaging critique of general relativity. In a Festschrift, (a book honoring Einstein), for Einstein's seventieth birthday in 1949, Gödel demonstrated the possibility of a special case in which, as Palle Yourgrau described the result, "the large-scale geometry of the world is so warped that there exist space-time curves that bend back on themselves so far that they close; that is, they return to their starting point." This means that "a highly accelerated spaceship journey along such a closed path, or world line, could only be described as time travel." In fact, "Gödel worked out the length and time for the journey, as well as the exact speed and fuel requirements." Gödel, of course, did not actually believe in time travel, but he understood his paper to undermine the Einsteinian worldview from within. http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/201008/2080027241.html But if General Relativity is insufficient to explain the centrality we witness for ourselves in the universe, what else is? Universal Quantum wave collapse to each unique point of observation! To prove this point I dug around a bit and found this experiment,,, This following experiment extended the double slit experiment to show that the 'spooky actions', for instantaneous quantum wave collapse, happen regardless of any considerations for time or distance i.e. The following experiment shows that quantum actions are 'universal and instantaneous': Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm ,, and to make universal quantum Wave collapse much more 'personal' I found this,,, "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays "Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays"; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963. http://eugene-wigner.co.tv/ Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries: Eugene Wigner Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another. http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_Course/WignerBio/wb1.htm i.e. In the experiment the 'world' (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a 'privileged center'. This is since the 'matrix', which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is 'observer-centric' in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its ‘uncertain’ 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe: Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. ================================bornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
bA77:
And actually Elizabeth, even if the Theists concedes the philosophical premise of the multiverse, though the materialist has no persuasive observational evidence for his conjecture, it still ends up undermining the materialistic worldview from within and thus proves the necessity for the existence of God to explain why physical reality exists;
I don't think it either undermines it or supports it ba77. I think it is entirely irrelevant. That's why I think Stenger is wrong (although he does specify that what he considers falsified is a specific Abrahamic God) If we posit God as the reason why anything exists, it doesn't matter how many universes there are. And if we regard that as a non-hypothesis (as many do) then again, it doesn't matter how many universes there are. Science in general, and cosmology in particular, simply don't shed light on the question. On the other hand, if we posit a specific God who, for example, created the world in 6 days, a few thousand years ago, then all of cosmology disconfirms that. But I assume that isn't what we are talking about.Elizabeth Liddle
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
ba77:
Elizabeth, you state: ‘The purpose of multiverse theory is to explain observed data.’ Please do tell us of this ‘observed data’
Data that tell us about the early universe, for example, e.g. from WMAP, about cosmic inflation and expansion, the distribution of matter, etc. Data that tell support Einstein's theories, and tell us that we are at the centre of our own observable universe, and that that must be a small subset of the entire universe. All cosmological data, essentially.Elizabeth Liddle
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
i.e. by materialists positing the multiverse they in fact end up conceding the necessary premise to make the ontological argument valid!!!bornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT
And actually Elizabeth, even if the Theists concedes the philosophical premise of the multiverse, though the materialist has no persuasive observational evidence for his conjecture, it still ends up undermining the materialistic worldview from within and thus proves the necessity for the existence of God to explain why physical reality exists; the 'infinite multiverse' conjecture suffers from some very serious flaws of logic. For instance exactly which laws of physics, arising from which material basis, are telling all the other natural laws in physics what, how and when, to do the many precise unchanging things they do in these other universes? Plus, if an infinite number of other possible universes must exist in order to explain the fine tuning of this one, then why is it not also infinitely possible for a infinitely powerful and transcendent Creator to exist? Using the materialist same line of reasoning for an infinity of multiverses to explain the extreme fine-tuning of this one we can surmise; If it is infinitely possible for God to exist then He, of 100% certainty, must exist no matter how small the probability is of His existence in one of these other infinity of universes, and since He certainly must exist, then all possibilities in all universes automatically become subject to Him since He is, by definition, All Powerful. To clearly illustrate the absurdity of what the materialists now consider their cutting edge science: The materialistic conjecture of an infinity of universes to explain the fine tuning of this one also insures the 100% probability of the existence of Pink Unicorns no matter how small the probability is of them existing. In fact a infinity of universes insures the existence of an infinity of Pink Unicorns an infinite number of times. Thus it is self-evident the materialists have painted themselves into a inescapable corner of logical absurdities in trying to find an escape from the Theistic implications we are finding for the fine-tuning of this universe. The preceding argument has actually been made into a formal philosophical proof: Ontological Argument For God From The Many Worlds Hypothesis - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784641 God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4 The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, God exists. Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4 I like the following concluding comment about the ontological argument from the Dr. Plantinga video: "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 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
04:00 AM
4
04
00
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, you state: 'The purpose of multiverse theory is to explain observed data.' Please do tell us of this 'observed data'; ==================== '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/ String Theory Fails Another Test, the “Supertest” http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3338 Parallel Universe Gravity Test Fails above 50 microns Ted Cook fails test to detect gravity leakage into a parallel universe at greater then 50 microns distance in the lab. This disproves many string theories mathematical predictions that predicted a parallel universe exists larger then 50 microns. Obviously the planck scale is so much smaller then the size scale ranges their technology is currently capable of analyzing, that detection might be next to impossible, even if they have the correct theory. They hope a parallel universe is physically larger to us then the planck scale, and might be detected in the future when they refine their techniques. -- HAH yeah right. http://quantauniverse.com/id14.html =========== GRBs Expand Astronomers' Toolbox - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: a detailed analysis of the GRB (Gamma Ray Burst) in question demonstrated that photons of all energies arrived at essentially the same time. Consequently, these results falsify any quantum gravity models requiring the simplest form of a frothy space. http://www.reasons.org/GRBsExpandAstronomersToolbox etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
PS: I should have said: "they are interesting theories". There is more than one multiverse theory.Elizabeth Liddle
June 24, 2011
June
06
Jun
24
24
2011
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply