Ethan Siegel is always a good read:
Sorry, theists. We have the math. We win.
? I’m a theist and I think a multiverse is likely. What are you winning exactly?
Fair point. I shouldn’t lump all theists together with the likes of the professional apologists who try to prove the existence of God with things like the “fine tuning argument.”
An interesting read. Cosmology and astronomy are not my strong suit (I prefer molecular level). It looks like the article is saying that multiverses are a natural consequence of inflation + quantum physics, but I didn’t see where he actually talked about any type of experimental prediction or indirect evidence as he was illustrating with gravitational waves. Did I miss something?
This article is wrong - or at least misleading. Inflation does not necessarily mean the multiverse. See e.g. 2nd paragraph of page 77 in this article that we discussed before in a previous thread (Big Bang "Problems" Addressed). For the technical details, see the citations in section X. of this paper.
The article says something important-
Unless we’ve got something wrong, the Multiverse is inevitable, and the Universe we inhabit is just a minuscule part of it.
In science, the purpose of empirical verification is to confirm that the theorist has not got anything wrong.
So the word “unless” here is extremely significant.
The entire claim depends on the properties of this so called “inflationary field”.
Here’s another beauty from the article -
It’s not a new, testable scientific prediction, but rather a theoretical consequence that’s unavoidable, based on the laws of physics as they’re understood today. Whether the laws of physics are identical to our own in those other Universes is unknown.
Do you see the contradiction? The inflationary field that is out side our universe will “unavoidably” create multiverses if the laws of physics in our universe applies to it.
But the author is not sure whether the same laws apply to other universes created by this “inflationary field”.
There is a reason the multiverse theory is considered highly speculative.
I was underwhelmed by the argument given.
Does ethan Siegel exist? the multiverse exists because of false presumptions as I understand it…
I think the light problem might be behind it all.
i think we need better people who do their day jobs on this stuff.
Yes. But that it is metaphysically possible refutes a number of the most popular arguments for God at a single stroke, specifically the “fine tuning argument” and Kalam Cosmological Argument. That the multiverse is sound mathematically and based viable physical models makes it irrefutable on metaphysical grounds, regardless of whether it ultimately pans out empirically.
That is what I meant by my initial comment.
One might have to consider the possibility that Robert Byers does not understand it, of course.
Did you move from physics to metaphysics?
The multiverse argument is just another way of removing the requirement for things to have a “cause”.
If the multiverse is true, then it’s possible for there to be alternate universes where Dragons, djinns etc exist. Even a multiverse where a conscious being exists who is capable of creating all universes. Nothing is impossible… and hence the existence of a Godlike creator of universes is inevitable.
And we are probably living in a universe created by such a God.
The multiverse is the end of reason.
It’s strange how materialistic explanations of the universe always seem to end up in scenarios where things like “cause” , “meaning” etc become redundant.
Many things are sound mathematically. That doesn’t make it true.
Note: I’m unsure of these arguments
The multiverse does not refute either argument. The multiverse would still have a beginning and the mechanism that causes a multiverse, inflation, requires very special circumstances to happen. At the most it makes the FTA less quantitative
But Eric Holloway says that ID has the math and that you guys lose.
Eric Holloway has a PhD in ID Information Theory math which doesn’t use nor need the widely accepted Shannon Information Theory math.
But we haz the maths!
A multiverse does not rule out God, it just kicks the “fine-tuning” can down the road, in hopes to make it all go away. Pretty desparate metaphysics in any universe, if you ask me.
To be fair, there’s always a can that gets kicked down the road. Or to use another metaphor: “It’s turtles all the way down.”
Yes. Why? Is that a problem?
Wrong. As explained in the article: It is a prediction of two physical models that are widely held by experts in the field.
…and completely unnecessary.
No. But it means they could be true. That is enough.
I think it’s a mistake to rely on multiverse theories as responses to the fine tuning argument, because the fine tuning argument has a completely speculative premise: That God is the sort of being that is highly like to want to create a universe with our set of laws.
The idea is that, if the set of laws and constants were just picked at random, we’d be very unlikely to end up with a universe like ours. So it must be this much more likely other option instead. But it was never established that the other option (God picked this particular set of laws and constants) is much more likely, if at all more likely.
In fact, it seems to me you have to fine-tune your God-concept to an extreme degree to make sure you end up with a God-theory that picks our ensemble of laws and constants, thus not actually having solved the problem in the first place.
Look guys, I can invent this supernatural mechanism that has this inscrutable property of being exactly capable of making the world exactly like we see it. How is THAT not a science stopper?