Is The Multiverse real?

[Baltazorg]

Pictures have recently appeared on the web of the cosmic background radiation. The standard model of the Big Bang predicts that it should look the same all over the universe, however the southern part of the telescopes vision shows it to be "warmer" than the northern half. One theory to explain this warping of sorts is that the universe is just 1 of many, therefore the other universes' gravity must be interfering with the CMB. This is somewhat disturbing because it could mean that we are truly just an accident. This discovery was first posted in may, so I am wondering if any good alternatives have arisen since then. I really don't know why not many christians are responding to this anomaly, if you could help please respond.

[Philip]

Even if any of the multi-verse theories were true (and they are not supported by scientific observation and research and remain entirely theoretical (and not considered plausible by the vast majority of planetary and other scientists) - theorists whom explain our universe by saying it is but one in a chain of universes have merely kicked the cosmic can down the theoretical road. As there would have to have been a beginning to the FIRST of these theoretical universes in even THAT chain - meaning that ultimately there would have to have been a first one. But what was ITS cause? All of the very same massive complexities and physical/chemical laws (necessary from its very beginning) to create the FIRST one would have been crucial to that one as well. So with the multi-verse theories, we're right back to how did the FIRST universe create itself? How did its guiding laws create themselves? Incredible complexity on a massive, unfathomable scale came into to existence all by itself, with no other prior cause(s) or Guidance???!!! Riiiggghhht!

The only people I see embracing an uncaused/unguided (by God) multi-verse are atheists. A tiny handful of theistic believers MAY entertain it - but I've not seen this. And even the vast majority of all scientists (in appropriate fields), atheist or not, have not endorsed multi-verse theories. Why? Because there is no hard science or corroborating evidences to seriously support them. As for atheists, the Big Bang would seem to have far too many theological ramifications - of which Einstein realized quite immediately. So they are desperate to find another unprovable/merely theoretical mechanism that also excludes God as Creator. I mean, what else do they have?

[hughfarey]

Hi Baltazorg.

Philip has beaten me to it, but this is my reply:

The trouble with 'responding' to the multiverse is that at present there is very little to respond to. It is currently more of a philosophical reaction to the apparent uniqueness of the universe we know than a genuine mathematical consequence. In some versions, the different universes can affect each other, but in most cases they can't. Attempts to find gravitational anomalies at the edge of our universe seem to assume firstly that our universe has an edge (which is by no means mainstream thinking) and that the physics of other universes is the same as ours (which is also only a variation on a theme). Either way, it has no bearing on whether or not we are an accident, any more than the discovery of other life supporting planets in our own universe, or even the discovery of new species of animals on our home planet.

[PaulSacramento]

You can also view it as such:
If the multiverse is real, then perhaps "heaven and hell" or simply terms we use to describe those "other universes" that some have had experience with.
Multiverse, alternate dimensions and such, may just be the scientific way of looking at "heaven and hell".

[Jac3510]

I would also add that even if the multiverse were real, that would say nothing about the existence of God. At worst it would only in principle challenge a couple popular arguments--the fine-tuning argument and the Kalam, and defenders of each argument could argue that the observation would not be fatal, anyway (as philip argued with respect to the Kalam above).

But suppose, just for the sake of argument, that we threw out the Kalam and the fine-tuning argument. How is that proof that we are an accident? There are myriads of other reasons to think that God exists. Indeed, those two arguments are relatively new given the long pedigree of natural theology.

So, I repeat: the reality of the multiverse says nothing about God's existence, much less about our place in this universe.

[neo-x]

Ok jac's got it covered...and I agree with him, the multiverse, fascinating as it may be, does not challenge the notion of God the creator, it does challenges the kalaam, and somewhat critically but that can be debated.

[Baltazorg]

I know that it doesn't destroy the notion that god is the creator but i seriously need someone to respond to why the CMB looks the way it does, is there an alternate explanation other than a multiverse.

[hughfarey]

OK, I'll have a go. Any quantum cosmologists out there feel free to correct me!
The cosmic background radiation map is not wholly uniform because of random variations in the explosion of the 'big bang.' Randomness on any large scale is often misunderstood to mean homogeneous, but a few minutes consideration, or, more fun, experimentation, will show that this is not the case. Imagine (or create) a 1000x1000 square spreadsheet, filled with random numbers, of which the even numbers are represented by a black square and the odd numbers are filled with a white square. If you ever achieved a pattern in which no black square was adjacent to any other black square (and the same with white squares), you would be astonished, as the chances of that happening are staggeringly small. What you usually see is little clumps of black (and white) squares scattered about, together with little strings and shapes that can look quite pareidolic. This is not surprising. For example the chances of any given set of nine squares all being black is 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 12, or 1/512. That means that if one was to pre-determine, say 10000 sets of 9 squares (it doesn't matter what shape they are), one would expect about 20 of them to be all black after filling the grid with random numbers. The most likely general appearance of such a random distribution is calculable, and any more homogeneous or more heterogeneous arrangement is increasingly less likely.

The distribution of irregularities in the cosmic background radiation is somewhat more heterogenous than the most likely random distribution, and can be considered to have been intrinsically unlikely. However, that doesn't mean impossible, and, just as other unlikely things occasionally happen, there is no intrinsic reason to suppose that it didn't happen here. It does not in itself imply the existence of a multiverse, although some multiverse models do imply the pattern of the CBR as we see it.

[jlay]

Is The Multiverse real?

If the MV were real, then by rule, there would exist a universe in which the MV does not exist.

[Philip]

OK, I'll have a go. Any quantum cosmologists out there feel free to correct me!
The cosmic background radiation map is not wholly uniform because of random variations in the explosion of the 'big bang.' Randomness on any large scale is often misunderstood to mean homogeneous, but a few minutes consideration, or, more fun, experimentation, will show that this is not the case. Imagine (or create) a 1000x1000 square spreadsheet, filled with random numbers, of which the even numbers are represented by a black square and the odd numbers are filled with a white square. If you ever achieved a pattern in which no black square was adjacent to any other black square (and the same with white squares), you would be astonished, as the chances of that happening are staggeringly small. What you usually see is little clumps of black (and white) squares scattered about, together with little strings and shapes that can look quite pareidolic. This is not surprising. For example the chances of any given set of nine squares all being black is 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x 12, or 1/512. That means that if one was to pre-determine, say 10000 sets of 9 squares (it doesn't matter what shape they are), one would expect about 20 of them to be all black after filling the grid with random numbers. The most likely general appearance of such a random distribution is calculable, and any more homogeneous or more heterogeneous arrangement is increasingly less likely.

The distribution of irregularities in the cosmic background radiation is somewhat more heterogenous than the most likely random distribution, and can be considered to have been intrinsically unlikely. However, that doesn't mean impossible, and, just as other unlikely things occasionally happen, there is no intrinsic reason to suppose that it didn't happen here. It does not in itself imply the existence of a multiverse, although some multiverse models do imply the pattern of the CBR as we see it.

My, my that boy shore does have a big brain in his noggin! Betcha he liked those nasty word problems that gave the rest of us headaches.

Just kidding you, Hugh!