Because your argument isn’t anything beyond your common sense? Then I guess we are done here.
No you are Matthew. Common sense is all you need. There is no counter to it cosmologically. There is no common sense in ID, in theistic evolution, no disinterest. I didn’t read the link. What does it say? Arguments about the statistical impossibility of abiogenesis etc, at al, ad nauseam, ad absurdum? What?
Whereas following the irrefutable, infinite chain of uniformitarian causality is just too simple for your scientismic disposition.
I can provide citation upon citation. What for? You can’t possibly change your wiring.
Don’t you use Wiki?
Do you mean there isn’t evidence against a multiverse? That’s certainly true but there also isn’t evidence against the flying spaghetti monster.
Maybe what you mean is that pretty much all cosmologists agree that something occurred before 10 to the negative 35 seconds in our universe’s timeline, and so common sense dictates something occurred/existed before this point. But I will similarly argue that you don’t get to just claim ‘oh it’s a multiverse’ and be done. Just like someone shouldn’t use the Kalam argument and just pretend there can’t be a scientific explanation and God supernaturally made the universe from nothing.
2 Likes
Kalam is specious nonsense. Uniformitarianism isn’t. To choose to believe that it doesn’t apply to universes is… interesting.
To paraphrase Paul Steinhardt, no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.
…in terms of Kolmogorov complexity the proposed multiverse is simpler than a single idiosyncratic universe.
[A]n entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler… (Similarly), the higher-level multiverses are simpler. Going from our universe to the Level I multiverse eliminates the need to specify initial conditions, upgrading to Level II eliminates the need to specify physical constants, and the Level IV multiverse eliminates the need to specify anything at all… A common feature of all four multiverse levels is that the simplest and arguably most elegant theory involves parallel universes by default. To deny the existence of those universes, one needs to complicate the theory by adding experimentally unsupported processes and ad hoc postulates: finite space, wave function collapse and ontological asymmetry. Our judgment therefore comes down to which we find more wasteful and inelegant: many worlds or many words. Perhaps we will gradually get used to the weird ways of our cosmos and find its strangeness to be part of its charm.
— Max Tegmark
2 Likes
Yes Trunyon90,as it stands the ever-accelerating paced coming-of- age technology just yeilds more proof of other possible Universes out there.Notice how the count for Exoplanets (Goldielocks Zone Worlds) are steadily on the rise.We may be to be at the brink of witnessing a Multiverse or at least tangible proof thereof.Science and Mathematics don’t lie.I just think people need to keep open-minded until there is scientific evidence of a Mulitiverse since it may be determined by a number of factors put together to come to a indisputable conclusion—some being significant on there own already like Quantum Mechanics,CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background),and the Big Bang Theory.No,"Multiverse Theory"is not some conjurred-up backwoods religion or an evolving cult but a very possible and likely phenomenon founded on microtechnological and macrotechnological research that rely on those theories we already significantly rely upon.Proving the existence of a Multiverse (if it does exist) will only be a matter of time and very hard work by science.Thanks for responding!
1 Like
What do you mean by uniformitarianism?
Since many models for cosmology have freedom in the fundamental parameters of the universe being different, it doesn’t really make sense to apply uniformitarianism at least how I understand it to anything beyond our universe.
Sure, but that effectively makes the theory useless as far as understanding reality and does stand in contrast to how science works. It is as useful as the common explanation “well God just made it to look like that.”
That’s why I’ve said multiple times that the multiverse is a logical extension of things like eternal inflation, the many worlds interpretation, and possibly the string theory landscape. The main problem is that there aren’t presently ways to detect any of the three. You can logical possibility and common sense anyone till you’re blue in the face, but you need evidence at the end of the day. Maybe you are right, but we just don’t know yet.
1 Like
Matthew, I mean what everybody means by uniformitarianism carried to its only possible logical conclusion: WYSIWYG
Further proof is redundant.
And yep, there are guys mowing their lawns every ten thousand light years or the cephalopod or ent equivalent guys, gals or boths are. With an incarnation in their species’ past or coming up. If they’re mowing lawns, He, She or It has already come and gone. Let alone in our practically infinite universe. Uniformitarianism means we’re average.
As Dirac or someone said, why is there anything? If there is no God, then a lone universe ex nihil, from null is meaningless, it might as well be a lone Wellington boot or Russell’s teapot. We’re in to comically absurd H2G2 territory. If there were a lone universe in God, then God is a tad strange: He changed after eternity. And don’t say that time doesn’t apply to God, even if it doesn’t, it hasn’t… forever. We just don’t like looking in to the pit of actual infinities. Tough. As Jesus’ contemporary Philo knew, uniformitarianism applies to God. How could it not? He’s Omming this universe like He has all others AND transcendent heaven for eternity. He’s a tad bigger and bigger minded than our childish imaginings.
If you want to believe anything else, knock yourself out. But why would you?
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.