The question of a multiverse arises naturally and unavoidably from investigation of the cosmos around us. I don’t see how the same can be said regarding the existence of a cosmic watch maker. No ongoing object of scientific investigation begs the question of whether a creator exists. That is rightfully the domain of theology to determine, nor science.
If the origin of the cosmos is a fit subject for scientific investigation, then the question of whether there ever was or will be but one singularity seems unavoidable. If one singularity existed, why not others? If one of them expanded, have there been and can there be others? Might they somehow even exist simultaneously? If being unavailable for empirical investigation makes a multi-verse ‘unscientific’ it does the same for a unique-verse. The evidence for either conclusion is equally vexed. The evidence of the universe we can investigate is not evidence for its uniqueness any more than it is evidence that there must be greater natural law that can answer the questions regarding singularities.
I don’t dispute that. I don’t think the hypothesis of a multiverse arose because “atheistic scientists” had a compulsion to reply to Christian apologetics. It was a natural conclusion following from two different aspects of theoretical physics. People just followed the logical conclusion of the math. ID has a different motivation.
Still, the article that I linked way back was asking the question of what qualified as “science.” If the hypothesis can’t be verified and makes no predictions, is it scientific?
I didn’t say that it was. I was asking the question. It makes no difference to me in the long run whether this Earth is unique in our universe or whether our universe is unique in the multiverse. I gave my answer to that question all the way back here:
Thanks for the clarification but I didn’t think you held that sort of view. I was just thinking it through to clarify what I think about it, really. To be honest I hadn’t watched the videos but now I’m going to have to go back and do that. I wasn’t too interested in the topic at first because I find that most discussions about a multiverse get side tracked by scifi themes.
I question ‘unavoidable’ without evidence. Where did the other possibility go when the superposition collapsed? Oh, it went to another universe. What about all the other possibilities along the way? That’s ok, there are lots of these universes. And you know this because? I can’t think of any other answer. As you can tell, I’m not a fan.
It doesn’t arise unavoidably. It’s a ‘god of the gaps’ theory so far without verifiable evidence.
On one hand physicists tell me:
“The observed is the only actuality that science will acknowledge” Mitchell McKain. (Don’t know how to do the quote thing because the topic is closed.) Great. Except in the case of multiverse theory this is patently not so.
Is it possible? Yes, I have no problem with a postulation to describe an unknown outcome. But to consider one unverified conclusion as unavoidable doesn’t allow for other explanations.
On a secondary point, people get lost in the word ‘infinite’ and assume infinite occurrences must include every possibility. You know, there’s a universe like this except today you’re wearing pink shoes. Infinite does not mean everything. There is an infinite number of divisible fractions between 1 and 2. None of them are 3.
When I say the question is unavoidable I don’t at all mean to imply that a multiverse is more likely than not. But I do insist there is also no more reason to think there is only one universe (cosmos = universe) than that there may be more than one. We simply do not know.
But once the Big Bang became a popular theory and we learned that it resulted from the rapid expansion of a singularity, then I don’t see how we avoid the follow up questions: what do we know about singularities? How does one arise? Do they also terminate? If so, what would cause that? And, yes, can there be more? It isn’t a spurious question.
Just attach an @ symbol in front and choose his name when it comes up.
I don’t disagree that science can only investigate what it can observe. But if what we observe leads to the theory that a singularity is a possible state, then the questions I mentioned arise naturally even if they can not be investigated. Science cannot investigate every question. Where it cannot be applied we should not assume anything about the cosmos based on our limitations. I think the questions I mentioned about singularities are coherent and ones we would like to investigate if it were possible. But, again, it not being possible is no evidence for assuming anything about singularities including its singular status.
We are in complete agreement. I think this is all silly stuff and a huge distraction from the cosmology questions (even if also entertaining to some). For that matter I am always floored when people speculate about the possible setting of cosmic constants which God is thought to have very lovingly set for the possibility of life. When all we have is the one universe we can observe, how can anyone speak with so much confidence about what is or isn’t possible?
So your god is just a guy in a parallel universe. Sounds a lot like the thinking of many Mormons which put Him as ruling another planet. Might make a good science fiction movie, like “Thor.”
Sounds like a mirror universe and that could have been taken straight from the tv series “Stranger Things.”
I don’t think either of these are correct. God is spirit. The physical universe is a creation of God. There is nothing parallel or mirror-like in this. The spiritual is the origin and vastly greater. I don’t think it is even remotely like a universe but simply a consequence of the possibility (the context) of a relationship with God. It is a context of His relationship with the angels He created and a context for our relationship with Him in eternal life. But do not think this is anything like the physical universe – more like the potential for an infinity of universes.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
48
Science is utterly irrelevant to this beyond uniformitarianism, nearly as much as theology is. There cannot be a single finite anomaly. It’s common sense.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
49
How do you reach those fallacious conclusions, apart from sloppily?
For most Christians, on most issues (especially the spiritual ones), those are the same thing.
All the reasons I gave were part of the Biblical picture so as far as my argument goes they are same thing also. The Biblical picture is certainly not like those sci fi movies and tv series at all.
To be sure the idea of “infinity” is a fairly recent one – 1657 John Wallis. But the treatment of God approaches this in many ways quite sufficient to what we can expect before the invention of the concept. The word basically means “without limit.” And this is a frequent description of God in the Bible. And some phrases have since even been translated as infinite.
Psalm 147:5 “His understanding is without measure (or infinite).”
And what applies to God applies to the spiritual because the Bible says God is spirit. God is infinite, so relationships with God are infinite (infinite possibilities), so the spiritual reality which derives from relationships with God is infinite.
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
53
Infinite in possibility in what way? For example? The Bible barely imagines it all. People here imagine all manner of horror. Is that possible? Or does Jesus actually do what His name says on the tin?
