Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New Scientist: Multiverse vs God

arroba Email

Possibly struggling to survive, New Scientist claims there is a 2500 year struggle between God and the multiverse:

Modern physics has also wrestled with this “fine-tuning problem”, and supplies its own answer. If only one universe exists, then it is strange to find it so hospitable to life, when nearly any other value for the gravitational or cosmological constants would have produced nothing at all. But if there is a “multiverse” of many universes, all with different constants, the problem vanishes: we’re here because we happen to be in one of the universes that works.More.

The rest is an avoidable paywall.

Put simply, the multiverse idea only ever got started because New Scientist types needed a universe that originated randomly. It never had any other existence anywhere ever.

See also: The multiverse

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Smiles for tjguy, bornagain77, and JGuy. ;-) -Q Querius
jdk, Actually, I watched and enjoyed The Colour of Magic, a TV adaptation. But the cosmic turtle and cosmic egg mythologies didn't originate with Terry Pratchett. The point is that there's a lack of any scientific evidence for the multiverse. It is pure fantasy that passes for science. But you've given me an idea. From now on in discussions of the origin of the Big Bang, I will insist that a better explanation is the cosmic turtle hypothesis---that a cosmic turtle, one among many, is the origin of the cosmic egg that started our universe. There are several reasons that the Cosmic Turtle (CT) hypothesis is superior to the multiverse alternative: (1) It disallows two or more Big Bangs from occurring in the same place and time (2) It disallows a Secondary Big Bang, SBB(tm), from occurring *within* our universe (3) It enables the integration of Darwin's Theory of Evolution to be applied to the Cosmic Turtle (4) It promotes spiritual unity between Chinese, Indian, Native American, and scientific mythologies. And Terry Pratchett, of course. -Q Querius
Q - "The multiverse idea is exactly one of those examples, and is not fundamentally any different from the claim of a trans-dimensional cosmic tortoise laying eggs that become universes." Funny. And to compound the humour a bit... if given the infinitude of possibilities in an infinite multiverse with say the unlimited ways it could vary, it seems that that tortoise would very likely exist. :P .... In connection to the idea of infinite (or infinitesimal) things and tortoises... let's call her Zeno... or is Zena better? JGuy
Hmmm. My guess is that Querius has read Terry Pratchett's "The Light Fantastic" - true? jdk
LOL Q: "The multiverse idea is exactly one of those examples, and is not fundamentally any different from the claim of a trans-dimensional cosmic tortoise laying eggs that become universes." It's turtles all the way down! :) gif - trans-dimensional cosmic tortoise http://i.imgur.com/QTEpjry.gif bornagain77
The multiverse idea is exactly one of those examples, and is not fundamentally any different from the claim of a trans-dimensional cosmic tortoise laying eggs that become universes.
Good one! The possibilities to explain the phenomenon are endless! All it takes is a good imagination. More and more, it is becoming impossible to be a scientist working in the realm of historical science where you try to explain what happened in the distant unobservable untestable past unless you have a very active imagination! tjguy
JGuy, Yes, exactly. Generating imaginative hypotheses is fine when followed by rigorous experiments, but it seems that speculation is sufficient, even considered irrefutable proof, when invoked in defense against evidence that seems to falsify the current narrative. The multiverse idea is exactly one of those examples, and is not fundamentally any different from the claim of a trans-dimensional cosmic tortoise laying eggs that become universes. -Q Querius
Querius. I will invoke from the infinite grab bag, since we can do that in the multiverse, other ways to break it and to counter all your antidote universes. Sure, you could invoke a special counter to the counter, but how many ways are there to break a thing than to fix it? :D I used this argument before long ago. Let's say these destroyer univeses exist... in fact, let's invoke a destroyer particle. It will enter a universe and destroy it instantly. There are an infinite number of these and they can travel far far faster than light. If the multiverse is real, it seems it almost must be true that everything can be... right? Well, isn't that the game the naturalists play withthe multiverse? The impossible becomes possible..the possible becomes probable..the probable certain. :P As such, one of these particles/universes should enter our universe right now and extinct us all in a moment.. but (assuming you are reading this still) we are still here. Therefore, these killer universes don't exist. Perhaps, that is so because the multi-verse does not exist. :D JGuy
Yes JGuy, that could indeed be used---if needed---to explain why these other universes aren't detectable. But then, there could also be a randomly generated universe for each of these universe---anti-universe pairs that stabilizes them just long enough for life to come to exist . . . :P -Q Querius
It seems to me that the multiverse theory requires that there are limits to the universes and/or that it is impossible for the universes to interact with each other.... otherwise... with the infinite possibilities, to play the multuiverse advocate's game, for every universe there will have to be a universe that exists that will have properties that instantly destroy the other before it could possibly allow for life to exist. ..so.. Doesn't this mean the multiverse or universe generator would need to be fine tuned in some way(s)? ;) JGuy
Well said all . . . Hmmm. God vs a God-like multiverse. Kronos is your name. But the Greek goddess Entropia knows how to deal with Kronos. ;-) mike1962, your observation reminds me of a similar one: "Darwinism can explain anything, but successfully predicts nothing." -Q Querius
If randomness can "do anything and everything" then it can explain nothing. Randomness of the gaps. mike1962
This is a typical example of how Materialists deal with data that does not fit their theory. They invent invisible entities to explain the data or perhaps they think up ad hoc explanations. Other invisible entities that have been invoked to rescue some of their theories include dark matter, dark energy, and dark radiation, hyper inflation, etc. The theory (the paradigm) is sacred. Concerning dark matter: http://creation.com/dark-matter-unknown-god-carmelian tjguy
Multiverse vs God? Well since the game is always being played on God's home field, since the Multiverse, besides not having a real home field to play on, has no evidence that it will ever have a real home field to play on, then I would definitely say that God has the home field advantage over the imaginary multiverse field of atheists.
Does a Multiverse Explain the Fine Tuning of the Universe? - Dr. Craig (observer selection effect vs. Boltzmann Brains) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb9aXduPfuA Multiverse and the Design Argument - William Lane Craig Excerpt: Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/multiverse-and-the-design-argument But Who Needs Reality-Based Thinking Anyway? Not the New Cosmologists - Denyse O'Leary January 2, 2014 Excerpt: Logic and reason are likewise irrelevant. Consider the multiverse claim that there are "infinite copies of you and your loved ones leading lives, up until this moment, that are absolutely identical to yours." Mathematician George F. R. Ellis notes that, if so, the deep mysteries of nature are too absurd to be explicable and that the proposed nine types of multiverse in one scheme are "mutually exclusive." True, but in a multiverse, "inexplicable" is okay. "Absurd" and "mutually exclusive" are meaningless concepts. It is equally meaningless to assert that one event is more probable than another. As David Berlinski puts it, "Why is Newton's universal law of gravitation true? No need to ask. In another universe, it is not"(Devil's Delusion, p. 124).,,, Science writer John Horgan pointedly asks, "Is theorizing about parallel universes immoral?" "These multiverse theories all share the same fundamental defect: They can be neither confirmed nor falsified. Hence, they don't deserve to be called scientific, according to the well-known criterion proposed by the philosopher Karl Popper. Some defenders of multiverses and strings mock skeptics who raise the issue of falsification as "Popperazi" -- which is cute but not a counterargument. Multiverse theories aren't theories -- they're science fictions, theologies, works of the imagination unconstrained by evidence." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/but_who_needs_r080281.html
Moreover, unlike the multiverse for which we have no evidence, save for in the imagination of atheists, Christians actually do have strong scientific support for their Theistic claim of a higher heavenly dimension and of a lower hellish dimension. This strong evidence comes from two of our most rigorously tested theories in science. i.e. Special and General Relativity respectfully.
Special and General Relativity compared to Heavenly and Hellish Near Death Experiences - video (reworked May 2016 – following two videos referenced in it) https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/1193118270701104/ (Entropic Concerns) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead is the correct solution for the "Theory of Everything" - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/1121720701174195/?pnref=story Albert Einstein vs. "The Now" of Philosophers and of Quantum Mechanics – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1129789497033982/?type=2&theater (Centrality Concerns) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ from Death as the “Theory of Everything” – video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1143437869002478/?type=2&theater Shroud of Turin: From discovery of Photographic Negative, to 3D Information, to Quantum Hologram - video https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/1119619634717635/?pnref=story
Verse and Music:
Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Hillsong United - Lord of Lords - With Subtitles/Lyrics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFkY5-Xp710

Leave a Reply