The problem is that we cannot observe the multiverse if it does somehow exist, which means that it cannot be verified and its existence or non-existence has no impact on our universe. That is why it is not a valid scientific theory, it is all theory and no science. It does not help us to understand the universe4 that we do see.
Of course it does. It’s a rational fact. No observation is necessary. It makes our universe infinitesimal, evanescent. What does that do to God?
Citation needed?
2 Likes
In science, we rarely observe the actual thing we are studying. I never see the actual order of bases in a DNA molecule, but I can still verify that sequence through other means. Rutherford never saw an atomic nucleus, but his experiments verified their existence nonetheless.
I also wouldn’t classify the multiverse as a scientific conclusion or theory. It is a rough hypothesis at best, but that is where all scientific ideas start. The goal for scientists is to figure out ways to verify the existence of the multiverse if it exists, and to figure out what relevance it has to our universe. It could also turn out to be a dead end, and that is also part of science.
3 Likes
You have it. What more do you need and why?
Riddles won’t do. I understand that the multiverse is a logical extension of some physical models that have some evidence in favor (eg inflation or the many worlds interpretation of QM). I also know that there are some clever potential measurements of multiverses imprinted on the CMB that could potentially be measured but are presently lacking in the evidence department.
3 Likes
It’s just mere logic pevaquark. We’ll never detect any effects, why would we? It’s been tried. A single universe cosmos is meaninglessly anomalously, absurdly, infinitely complex - whether God exists or not, unless we inhabit a finite local area of an infinite, eternal cosmic universe a.k.a. … multiverse.
That doesn’t cut it when it comes to science. You don’t get to just say “well it just makes sense it should be there and proclaim that it is without evidence.”
That just doesn’t cut it when it comes to science. You don’t get to just say, “well it has to exist but when we tried to get data it was too hard and we give up trying.”
That sounds like the fallacy of an argument from consequences. One also doesn’t get to claim in science that “well a single universe leads to undesirable philosophical outcomes, so it must be wrong.”
1 Like
All irrelevant to fully scientific uniformitarianism pevaquark. Absolutely speciously and obtusely irrelevant.
That’s entirely incidental. It’s just uniformitarian common sense. And of course it doesn’t eliminate the need for a purposeful Creator as ground of material and transcendent being. It actually complements God’s immutability, whereas a one-off finite universe is an insanely absurdly complex anomaly.
If you think that the multiverse is a rational fact, that is your opinion. I do not agree
That is your opinion. It does not effect God because the fact still is that God saw fit to create either the universe or the multiverse to be a home for humanity, created in God own image. The anthropic principle still works.
God so loved the world…
I have no idea what you are trying to say. But if you continue just to assert over and over again without supplying any evidence I think I’ll have to go with Hitchens’ razor here:
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence
2 Likes
Mere assertion is just fine in this instance.
Not all opinions are equal.
Fine, then I assert that you are wrong. And this can become an endless cycle of meaningless assertions. You have to provide evidence for your claim about a multiverse. I don’t understand in what world it’s okay to just assert what we want to be true and then pretend that is reality.
1 Like
Not a problem. Not all assertions are equal. If you want to go against Kolmogorov’s common sense, you do that. Which I encountered after using my own. No citations can ever be enough for you and none are necessary in the first place.
Can you actually clarify what you are talking about? So your argument is that you are using not just regular common sense, but Kolmogorov’s common sense. We know that common sense in general is a terrible way to do science. Here is a nice article written up by @DennisVenema on some of the challenges to doing common-sense science or using our intuitions instead of doing the high level science:
2 Likes
Utilitarianism is common sense. What happens in your back yard always has everywhere forever. Kolmogorov rightly extends back yard to our universe. I’m more than happy that He agrees with me.
Please try to be very specific if you are going to make claims. What happens in my backyard specifically that you believe “always has everywhere forever?” You mean like the laws of nature perhaps? Or you mean me cutting my lawn always has everywhere forever? And also, some references to Kolmogorov might also be helpful, instead of just saying “Kolmogorov has common sense and my common sense lines up with his common sense in this one particular area about a multiverse.”
1 Like
I couldn’t possibly be more specific.