Cosmic Inflation - Did It Happen?

[Philip]

From Reasons to Believe/Hugh Ross: http://www.reasons.org/articles/cosmic- ... y-happened

[Silvertusk]

Interesting article - but now the question is - was it inflation from a multiverse or not.

And what is the difference between a simple inflation and a complex inflation?

[B. W.]

Interesting article - but now the question is - was it inflation from a multiverse or not.

And what is the difference between a simple inflation and a complex inflation?

The British Tax system verses the United States tax system...
-
-
-

[Philip]

Silver: Interesting article - but now the question is - was it inflation from a multiverse or not

Which, ultimately, at least as in regards to the origins of whatever might have theoretically preceded the present universe, is irrelevant.

Because that first universe also had to be CAUSED (couldn't be SELF-caused), controlled, orchestrated, etc., and input with the complex attributes and power that would guide it into and also make possible for it to spawn additional/subsequent derivative universes. Non-theists love to pull out the multiverse theories as some supposed alternatives to the necessity for there being a God behind the present (and only PROVEN and KNOWN - see universes only theorized from the pages of science fiction) universe. The multiverse theory only kicks the God question further back into time, down the cosmic road. It's adherents either believing in or leaving their minds open to to the possibility of "Pop Metaphysics" - as ALL required for ANYTHING to exist, organize, and be empowered - ALL that - with incomprehensible design, power and specificity, cannot simply POP into existence uncaused/uncontrolled/uncreated!

[PaulSacramento]

While the BBT (Big Bang Theory) does NOT address the CREATION of the universe ( it address that expansion of the universe), There is abundant evidence to show that ALL the KNOW ( and seem to be discovering) have a beginning, have a cause and that means that, even IF there was always SOMETHING before expansion, SOMETHING CAUSED expansion and CONTINUES TO SUSTAIN it.

[Silvertusk]

Here is a very interesting article about the man who helped develop the theory and who now criticizes it.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... -conceive/

[PaulSacramento]

Here is a very interesting article about the man who helped develop the theory and who now criticizes it.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro ... -conceive/

I lover this part:

To me, the accidental universe idea is scientifically meaningless because it explains nothing and predicts nothing. Also, it misses the most salient fact we have learned about large-scale structure of the universe: its extraordinary simplicity when averaged over large scales.

[Philip]

Paul: To me, the accidental universe idea is scientifically meaningless because it explains nothing and predicts nothing. Also, it misses the most salient fact we have learned about large-scale structure of the universe: its extraordinary simplicity when averaged over large scales.

Paul, would you please elaborate on that last point, a bit? Thanks!

[PaulSacramento]

Paul: To me, the accidental universe idea is scientifically meaningless because it explains nothing and predicts nothing. Also, it misses the most salient fact we have learned about large-scale structure of the universe: its extraordinary simplicity when averaged over large scales.

Paul, would you please elaborate on that last point, a bit? Thanks!

I quote that from the article you linked.

Basically, we observe set rules in the universe, set laws if you will.
We can predict things based on those laws and those predictions come true, hence we have a scientifically based statement ( gravity for example).
The universe is simple in that regard.
The accident universe and the "multi universe" and the "theory of everything", disregard all that and suggest that anything is possible, even if we have no evidence to suggest that.

From the same article:

Steinhardt: My concern was that the multiverse is a ‘theory of anything’, a proposal that allows all possible cosmological outcomes (smooth or not smooth, curved or flat, etc.) and, consequently, is not subject to empirical tests. Some claim that superstring theory allows exponentially many (or perhaps infinitely many) possibilities for the fundamental laws (masses of particles, types of forces, etc.) and that there is no guiding principle to determine which set of physical laws is more probable. The sets of laws comprise what is called the “string landscape.”

Combine the inflationary multiverse with the string landscape, and now one has a ‘supertheory of anything’: both the cosmological properties and the microphysical properties of the universe are accidental and unpredictable.

As we understand superstring theory better, I truly hope we find that there are sound reasons why the physical laws we observe are naturally selected. Superstring theory, combined with an improved cosmological picture, may then lead to a powerfully explanatory and predictive theory

.


Also:

In order to explain the one simple universe we can see, the inflationary multiverse and accidental universe hypotheses posit an infinite variety of universes with arbitrary amounts of complexity that we cannot see. Variations on the accidental universe, such as those employing the anthropic principle, do nothing to help the situation.

Scientific ideas should be simple, explanatory, predictive. The inflationary multiverse as currently understood appears to have none of those properties.