Multiverse News

The multiverse: Not Is and Ought, but Ifs and Maybes …

Spread the love

Guy who really, really wants to believe in the multiverse:

At the moment, there are too many ifs and maybes in this story.

Observations do not uniquely favour inflation though the BICEP2 results are an impressive step in this direction. It is a matter of some debate whether inflation naturally generates a multiverse.

Further, many multiverse theories struggle to predict anything, so clearly there is much much more to be done.

But positing the multiverse is not, as claimed by some, the end of science. It may be the start of the biggest scientific adventure of all.

Of course the multiverse would not be the end of science if all you mean is what people can be forced to pay for and call “science.” It is merely the end of reason, evidence, and fact.

For more, go to The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).

Follow UD News at Twitter!

11 Replies to “The multiverse: Not Is and Ought, but Ifs and Maybes …

  1. 1
    OldArmy94 says:

    That great paragon of American philosophy, Don Meredith once said:

    If ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ were candy and nuts, we’d all be having a merry Christmas.”

  2. 2
    VunderGuy says:

    @News

    Of course the multiverse would not be the end of science if all you mean is what people can be forced to pay for and call “science.” It is merely the end of reason, evidence, and fact.

    Eh, it’s only such if the multiverse is past eternal, which would essentially mean that the sum totality of reality is just a brute fact ultimately inexplicable in its existence and would give Nihilism the greatest boost it’s ever seen.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Einstein – General Relativity – Thought Experiment – video
    https://vimeo.com/95417559

  4. 4
    lukebarnes says:

    “Guy who really, really wants to believe in the multiverse”.

    False.

  5. 5
    VunderGuy says:

    @lukebarnes

    If the multiverse is past eternal, what do you think of the implications for Nihilism?

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Multiverse theories are conjectured by atheists every time there is a Theistic implication that atheists want to ‘explain away’. Scratch on the surface of any multiverse scenario and you will find a random infinity that was conjectured in the imagination of some atheist so as to avoid any inference to God!

    Parallel Universes by Max Tegmark – (Ironically subtitled) Not Just A Staple Of Science Fiction Other Universes Are Direct Implications Of Cosmological Observations – May 2003
    http://space.mit.edu/home/tegm....._sciam.pdf

    For instance, in Tegmark’s ‘LEVEL I MULTIVERSE’ we find that direct observational evidence is immediately cast to the side,,

    THE SIMPLEST TYPE of parallel universe is simply a region of space that is too far away for us to have seen yet. The farthest that we can observe is currently about 4 x 10^26 meters, or 42 billion light-years — the distance that light has been able to travel since the big bang began. (The distance is greater than 14 billion light-years because cosmic expansion has lengthened distances.) Each of the Level I parallel universes is basically the same as ours. All the differences stem from variations in the initial arrangement of matter

    Yet no matter how reasonable it may seem to Tegmark to infer that parallel universes exist outside our ability to directly observe them, (i.e. outside the Cosmic Background Radiation), he simply is not justified, scientifically, in imagining that they exist apart from our observation of them. Moreover, in his haste to cast ‘observational evidence’ to the side, he has neglected to realize just how important our ‘conscious observation’ is in reality in the first place. Case in point,

    The Scale of The Universe – Part 2 – interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features)
    http://htwins.net/scale2/scale.....olor=white

    The preceding interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!). i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of ‘observable’ length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle. It is certainly a point of evidence that I am willing to say ‘well the reason we observe as such is because there are a quasi-infinity of other unobservable universes where the observation/value could have been very different’.

    As an aside to the interactive graph I cited: Just as it makes no sense, from a space-time perspective, to ask, ‘What was “before” the Big Bang?’ since there was no space-time before the Big Bang, it also makes no sense, from a space-time perspective, to ask, ‘What is below the Planck length?’

    Planck length – Theoretical significance
    Excerpt: This implies that the Planck scale is the limit below which the very notions of space and length cease to exist.,,,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....gnificance

    Max Tegmark goes on to imagine a,,,

    LEVEL II MULTIVERSE
    A SOMEWHAT MORE ELABORATE type of parallel universe emerges from the theory of cosmological inflation. The idea is that our Level I multiverse — namely, our universe and contiguous regions of space — is a bubble embedded in an even vaster but mostly empty volume. Other bubbles exist out there, disconnected from ours. They nucleate like raindrops in a cloud. During nucleation, variations in quantum fields endow each bubble with properties that distinguish it from other bubbles.

    Level II Multiverse (i.e. inflation), as Tegmark himself admits, was invented in the imagination of atheists to ‘explain away’ why we live in a finely tuned universe:

    Evidence – Tegmark
    COSMOLOGISTS INFER the presence of Level II parallel universes by scrutinizing the properties of our universe. These properties, including the strength of the forces of nature (right) and the number of observable space and time dimensions (far right), were established by *random processes during the birth of our universe. Yet they have exactly the values that sustain life. That *suggests the existence of other universes with other values.

    *Please note the metaphysical assumption of random. And also please note how the metaphysical ‘suggestion’ for other universes is brought in to ‘explain away’ the fine tuning of this universe so as to avoid the Theistic implications.

    here are the graphs Tegmark listed:

    graph – fine tuning of strength of electromagnetism balanced to strength of strong nuclear force
    http://inspirehep.net/record/7.....alphas.png

    graph – Time vs Space Dimensions
    http://ej.iop.org/images/0264-.....l/img5.gif

    Moreover, as Tegmark himself grudgingly admits, these inflationary models lead to the epistemological failure of science itself:

    WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Infinity – Max Tegmark – January 2014
    Excerpt: Physics is all about predicting the future from the past, but inflation seems to sabotage this: when we try to predict the probability that something particular will happen, inflation always gives the same useless answer: infinity divided by infinity. The problem is that whatever experiment you make, inflation predicts that there will be infinitely many copies of you far away in our infinite space, obtaining each physically possible outcome, and despite years of tooth-grinding in the cosmology community, no consensus has emerged on how to extract sensible answers from these infinities. So strictly speaking, we physicists are no longer able to predict anything at all!
    This means that today’s best theories similarly need a major shakeup, by *retiring an incorrect assumption. Which one?
    Here’s my prime suspect: infinity.
    MAX TEGMARK – Physicist
    http://www.theguardian.com/sci.....t-edge-org

    (*actually the ‘incorrect assumption’ that needs to be retired is the materialistic/naturalistic philosophy which leads to the epistemological failure of science: also see A.Plantinga ‘evolutionary argument against naturalism’)

    Moreover, the fine-tuning, particularly of light, regardless of what Tegmark may prefer to believe, certainly does not point to ‘random’ processes creating this universe:

    Fine Tuning Of Universal Constants, Particularly Light – Walter Bradley – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491552

    Moreover, in the recent debate between Craig and Carrol, whilst Carrol was busy using the atheist’s infamous ‘nothing to see here’ argument to ‘explain away’ the fine tuning of the universe,,

    nothing to see here
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSjK2Oqrgic

    Whilst Carrol was busy with all that, at the same forum/debate, Collins quietly delivered the this following paper which, unlike the ‘anything goes’ multiverse, demonstrated the predictive power of Intelligent Design for science:

    The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability – Robin Collins – March 22, 2014
    Excerpt: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
    Prediction: DLO: Within the range of values of a given parameter p that yield near – optimal livability, p will fall into that subrange of values that maximize discoverability (given constraints of elegance are not violated).
    In every case that I was able to make calculations regarding whether the fundamental parameters of physics are optimized in this way, they appear to pass the test.[iv] This alone is significant since this hypothesis is falsifiable in the sense that one could find data that potentially disconfirms it – namely, cases in which as best as we can determining, such as a case in which changing the value of a fundamental parameter – such as the fine – structure constant – increases discoverability while not negatively affecting livability.[v] Below, I will look at a case from cosmology where this thesis could have been disconfirmed but was not.,,,
    The most dramatic confirmation of the discoverability/livability optimality thesis (DLO) is the dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) on the baryon to photon ratio.,,,
    …the intensity of CMB depends on the photon to baryon ratio, (??b), which is the ratio of the average number of photons per unit volume of space to the average number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) per unit volume. At present this ratio is approximately a billion to one (10^9) , but it could beanywhere from one to infinity; it traces back to the degree of asymmetry in matter and anti – matter right after the beginning of the universe – for approximately every billion particles of antimatter, there was a billion and one particles of matter.,,,
    The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near – optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.
    According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists — to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB. This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13)
    It is easy to see that this prediction could have been disconfirmed. In fact, when I first made the calculations in the fall of 2011, I made a mistake and thought I had refuted this thesis since those calculations showed the intensity of the CMB maximizes at a value different than the photon – baryon ratio in our universe. So, not only does the DLO lead us to expect this ratio, but it provides an ultimate explanation for why it has this value,,, This is a case of a teleological thesis serving both a predictive and an ultimate explanatory role.,,,
    http://home.messiah.edu/~rcoll.....osting.pdf

    Thus, whilst multiverse conjectures lead to the epistemological failure of science, presupposing intelligent design in science is a fruitful heuristic in science and has led to a successful prediction in science.

    etc.. etc.. etc…

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    correction: It is certainly NOT a point of evidence that I am willing to say ‘well the reason we observe as such is because there are a quasi-infinity of other unobservable universes where the observation/value could have been very different’.

  8. 8
    VunderGuy says:

    @Bornagain

    “Multiverse theories are conjectured by atheists every time there is a Theistic implication that atheists want to ‘explain away’. Scratch on the surface of any multiverse scenario and you will find a random infinity that was conjectured in the imagination of some atheist so as to avoid any inference to God!”

    Tone down the rhetoric, okay?

    Also, why do folks think that, if the level-1 multiverse exists, that it’s spatially infinite? Wouldn’t it be more correct and less jumping to conclusions to merely say that the universe is larger than the observable universe? I mean, considering that space is expanding, how does it even make sense for the universe to be infinite? Isn’t infinity really just the limits of how far space can expand, even though it will never reach it since it didn’t start of infinite?

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Tone down the rhetoric, okay?

    First, I don’t consider it rhetoric, but an observation of fact

    i.e.

    fine-tuning = infinite multiverses

    wave collapse to conscious observer = many worlds

    etc.. etc..

    second, I was not saying it in a mean spirited way to any particular person, but to those who may hold their atheism near and dear, so there is nothing to ‘tone down’.

    Thus, as much as I appreciate some of your insights, I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to be my censor.

  10. 10
    VunderGuy says:

    @bornagain

    Explain to me the thing about Lot’s wife.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    The current price of tea in China is: 1.40
    with a max bid of … 70.67

    disclaimer: not to be confused with a butterfly’s wings flapping in China. This price is scientifically derived from numbers only tangentially related to the actual price of tea in China, which we have found is profoundly more accurate than actual prices paid for tea in China. How this affects you, your child, or an acquaintance is derived, again, scientifically, by a patent-pending method we’d love to discuss, but can’t, at this time
    http://supertart.com/priceofteainchina/index.php

    Price of Tea in China – graph
    http://supertart.com/priceofte.....aChart.png

Leave a Reply