Intelligent Design Multiverse Naturalism Science

The multiverse: The long march of progressive politics through science institutions

Spread the love
soap bubbles/Timothy Pilgrim

From Peter Woit at Not Even Wrong:

The political campaign for the multiverse continues today with a piece by Amanda Gefter at Nautilus. It’s a full-throated salvo from the Linde-Guth side of the multiverse propaganda war they are now waging, with Linde dismissing Steinhardt’s criticism as based on “a total ignorance of what is going on”. All of the quotes for the article are on the pro-multiverse side. There is a new argument from them I’d never heard before: Guth comes up with this one:

You can create a universe from nothing—you can create infinite universes from nothing—as long as they all add up to nothing. …

The article is subtitled “Why the majority of physicists are on one side of a recent exchange of letters”. One way to interpret this claim is just that 33 is more than 3, but the reason for this is clear: while Guth, Kaiser, Linde and Nomura decided to go on a political campaign, drumming up signatures on their letter. … More.

Basically, the multiversers rounded up push poll signatures whereas the other poor questioning sots put up a website discussing the science issues. The latter will probably lose, regardless of evidence. In the age of marchin’, marchin’ and shoutin’ shoutin’, the science doesn’t actually matter much. The marchers and shouters won’t admit that, but they will act like it. That is how we will know.

See also: How naturalism rots science from the head down

8 Replies to “The multiverse: The long march of progressive politics through science institutions

  1. 1
    Latemarch says:

    You can create a universe from nothing—you can create infinite universes from nothing—as long as they all add up to nothing.

    Nothing….I do not think that that word means what you think it means.

  2. 2
    News says:

    Latemarch at 1: Would you care to say what you think it means?

    This might help, in selecting a definition: Must we understand “nothing” to understand physics?

  3. 3
    Barry Arrington says:

    Yes, Latemarch, nothing can do anything so long as we define “nothing” to mean “something.” That’s the usual ploy. Thanks for playing the linguistic game with us. Do you have anything philosophically coherent to offer?

  4. 4
    asauber says:

    You can create a universe from nothing

    Who? Me?


  5. 5
    ppolish says:

    Something from nothing & blind watchmaker. Give me a break please.

    First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is:) Pinnacle.

  6. 6
    kairosfocus says:


    you have a point.

    For, a genuine “nothing” means non-being, not matter, space, quantum foams and fluctuations, minds contemplating propositions, etc.

    As in, Krauss, Dawkins and others, relabelling a supposed prior state nothing and calling it a physical nothing is an ill-informed bait and switch, as is oh if we start at a zero state and have symmetrical positive and negative values summing to zero, that is a world from nothing. In short, ignorance of the nature of being backed by contempt for serious reflection on such, is driving ill-advised speculation.

    Where, were there ever utter nothing, as such has no causal properties that is exactly what would forever obtain. So, that a world is, entails that SOME-thing always was, the root of reality, something independent of causal antecedents, indeed an ontologically necessary being. That is, something that is a framework reality for any possible world and adequate to explain this one in particular. Including, that we exist as significantly, responsibly and rationally free creatures, just to have a discussion that is credible.

    So, the world-root is necessary and bridges the IS-OUGHT gap (which can only be coherently bridged there).

    It is obviously unpalatable to many to hear this, but first, evolutionary materialistic scientism — never mind the lab coats — is a self-falsifying, incoherent non-starter in this precise context.

    Second, after centuries of debates — including a recent attempt to appeal to Taoism here at UD — there is but one serious candidate world-root to fill the bill: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of loyalty and the responsible, reasonable service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature.

    Ethical theism is now on the table.


  7. 7
    Latemarch says:

    nihil fit ex nihilo (Out of nothing comes nothing)

    Don’t you just love how you can throw a bit of Latin into a discussion to give it a sense of lofty pretension.

    But their nothing is a very special nothing.
    This is about as philosophically coherent as I get when I quote “Princess Bride”

    The snark is strong in this one.
    You started my day off with a smile.

    Heard that Gregg was a believer but have no personal knowledge. If so expecting great music.

    Elegantly put. I would love to be able to put it together like that but my mind is like today’s coffee, weak and old.

    To all,
    Pity the physicists and mathematicians. When you start with non-being you have no where to go. That’s not very interesting! That’s why the big bang singularity is in a space time field, the string theorists in their multiple dimensions, mathematicians their null set, and the quantum theorists in their quantum field.
    The math shows it’s possible but when the chalk dust from the final zero is still dancing in the beam of sunlight, they’ve lost sight of the chalkboard.
    To my mind all these invoke the infinite regress. When it became obvious that things were just a little too convenient in this universe (Is that a foot I see there in the door?). Push it away, push it away! Multiverse! This is nothing more than flat earth, turtles all the way down.

  8. 8
    Eric Anderson says:

    Latemarch @1:

    LOL! I love it. 🙂

Leave a Reply