The Multiverse Theory.

[Silvertusk]

This article is well written and seems to be where the current thinking of the Multiverse theory is.

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/oct/04 ... :int=0&-C=

It really shows that Physicists are being thwarted at every turn. A multiverse is their god. It is the uncreated eternal source of all matter. So really there are exhibiting the same type of faith we have. So much in common - yet so different.

Silvertusk.

[Gman]

I thought the RTB website had an interesting spin on it...

"I would argue that the “God or multiverse” choice is a false dichotomy. First, in past TNRTBs I have shown that the multiverse does not help the naturalist eliminate God. In fact, in a strictly naturalist worldview, the multiverse adversely affects the scientific enterprise. Second, I see no inherent problems with God using a multiverse to create a place where Earth life, especially humanity, could grow and thrive.

It is uncertain whether the multiverse will ultimately prove true. However, the fact that so many prominent scientists see it as a potential explanation for the fine-tuning observed in this universe highlights the strength of evidence backing the inference that a Designer fashioned this universe."

Source: http://www.reasons.org/astronomy/multiv ... multiverse

[BGoodForGoodSake]

In physics it has been often shown that the mathematics used to model reality can in turn predict real entities.
Take for instance the black hole, first described mathematically before evidence for it was ever found.

The reason why some physicisists theorize a multiverse is the same.
Because the mathematics points to this possibility.
From the mathematics of string theory.
"Instead of providing one solution that would explain the conditions in our universe, the equations offered up a staggering 10^500 possible solutions. Each solution seems to describe a different universe in a “string landscape,” each with its own physical laws and each (in theory) equally likely to exist." (from the article) *

To a mathemetician, any proof of a multiverse will be a stunning conclusion to the countless hours spent on solving the mathematics of string theory.

So in conclusion, the multiverse theory was not dreamed up to provide an answer to fine tuning.
I would even venture to say that many of these mathematicians aren't even aware of the concept.

*Of course technically the theory of multiple universes originally stems from an interpretation of quantum mechanics.

[hatsoff]

the fact that so many prominent scientists see it as a potential explanation for the fine-tuning observed in this universe highlights the strength of evidence backing the inference that a Designer fashioned this universe.

I don't see how.

The fine-tuning argument as I have encountered it (e.g. Robin Collins' formulation in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology) has multiple and serious flaws, not the least of which is the multiverse hypothesis. For example, Collins' argument is handicapped by a reliance on the paradoxical and thoroughly unnecessary principle of indifference. Moreover, theism makes a poor explanation even if a prior probability distribution is granted under naturalistic assumptions. And of course life has no a priori specialness.

[DannyM]

Other universes? Entirely separate from eachother? So no observable consequences upon our own universe? Then we use the principle of economy and cut these out any equation/theory.

[RollingStone]

It really shows that Physicists are being thwarted at every turn. A multiverse is their god. It is the uncreated eternal source of all matter. So really there are exhibiting the same type of faith we have. So much in common - yet so different.

I really hate this myth that faith has anything to do with scientific theories. It isn't faith, because scientists know when they don't know something. They don't know there's a multiverse, for example. No scientist out there "has faith" that a multiverse exists. Sure, there may be evidence pointing to its existence, but this doesn't mean scientists claim to "know" it, despite the lack of evidence, as Christians etc. do with God.

[DannyM]

I really hate this myth that faith has anything to do with scientific theories. It isn't faith, because scientists know when they don't know something. They don't know there's a multiverse, for example. No scientist out there "has faith" that a multiverse exists. Sure, there may be evidence pointing to its existence, but this doesn't mean scientists claim to "know" it, despite the lack of evidence, as Christians etc. do with God.

Of course science requires an element of faith. Thgat you may not be aware of this shows your dogma. Please could you elaborate on what it is Christians claim to "know...despite the lack of evidence..."?

[RollingStone]

Of course science requires an element of faith. Thgat you may not be aware of this shows your dogma. Please could you elaborate on what it is Christians claim to "know...despite the lack of evidence..."?

Sure. Depending on your particular interpretation of things, the list could include:

• That God exists.
• That Adam and Eve were spontaneously created.
• That Jesus rose from the dead.
• That Jesus turned water into wine.
• That, when you go to church, you eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ.
• That Moses parted the Red Sea.
• That Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus's birth.
• That Noah housed and managed to keep alive all those animals.
• That homosexuality is a sin.
• That condoms are evil (and possibly help the spread of AIDS).
• Etc., etc., etc.

[DannyM]

Of course science requires an element of faith. Thgat you may not be aware of this shows your dogma. Please could you elaborate on what it is Christians claim to "know...despite the lack of evidence..."?

Sure. Depending on your particular interpretation of things, the list could include:

• That God exists.
• That Adam and Eve were spontaneously created.
• That Jesus rose from the dead.
• That Jesus turned water into wine.
• That, when you go to church, you eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ.
• That Moses parted the Red Sea.
• That Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus's birth.
• That Noah housed and managed to keep alive all those animals.
• That homosexuality is a sin.
• That condoms are evil (and possibly help the spread of AIDS).
• Etc., etc., etc.

Apart from the obvious discrepencies in your list, you'll find that the Christian has evidence for most of this. So where's the evidence for life from non-life?

[Gabrielman]

The fact is, they don't have it.

A bunch of random protons and neutrons and electrons that just happened to exist and just happened to have the right charge and just happened to form the right chemicals that made proteins just happened to come to life.... yeah that's it...

talk about a leap of faith!

[Talavus]

Hello, this is my first post and I have terrible grammer and spelling so please be kind and forgiving, Thank You.

I consider myself a Christian and accept my beliefs by faith alone, but I am posting this responce as a possible argument for Intelligent Design in regards to M-theory. If I'm rehashing a previous argument I apologize please let me know.

As I understand it M-theory in a nutshell says that anything that can happen does in another parallel universe. Although this argument could be applied to the beginning (aka: the big bang), I am going to specifically apply it to the beginnings of life on earth. I can think of only 2 possibilities for the origins of life 1)Random evolution and 2)Intelligent Design. For the sake of brevity I wont go into all the possible permutations of both at this stage but stay with only the initial two parallel worlds. So if we start our timelines with a barren earth ripe with all the proper elements for life, In world 1 at least three parallel worlds are generated 1/1 life begins, 1/2 life dose not begin, and 1/3 life fails. The same applies to world 2 2/1 life is created, 2/2 life is not created, and 2/3 the created life fails. What were left with in world 1 is 1 evolved world, but in world 2 thanks to the intelligent designer both 2/2 and 2/3 can be restarted leaving 3 or more worlds. Now every time a crisis/event arisises, in world 1 the number of possible evolved worlds is diminished, but in world 2 the number of created worlds increases. In very short order the number of created worlds would far outnumber the number of evolved worlds, and after hundreds of millions of years the odds that we live in a created world where life was intelligently designed would be an almost absolute certinty.

The fight does'nt always go to the strong, nor the race to the swift, but that's the way we place our bets.

On a side note if the sigularity at the Beginning(BB) was infinitly small wouldn't it be affected by the laws of Quantum Physics?
I heard that at the quantum level things exist simultaniously in multiple states until observed couldn't the reason for the beginning (BB) be the observations of The Creator?

Thanks

[RangeRover]

The statements in the Discover article make no sense.

If in fact the kind of "multiverse" assumed by M-Theory, consisting of infinitely many "floating" universes (including our own) exists, the probability of a collision between a given universe and some other universe would be 1. And these collisions would necessarily happen continuously. So obviously since such collisions don't happen, there are not infinitely many universes in the multiverse, or put in simplest terms, there is no multiverse.

M-Theory is the latest attempt to rescue string theory, as well as the Big Bang theory, both of which are premised on non-provable assumptions and hence are not really science at all, but a kind of faith-based materialistic philosophy.

It is absurd in the extreme for those who rail against matters of religious faith to themselves embrace premises no more amenable of observational proof than any of the claims of religion.

[Kurieuo]

As I understand it M-theory in a nutshell says that anything that can happen does in another parallel universe.

I don't think see how believing in 11 dimensions leads to this conclusion at all. Neither do I think it anything for Christians to fear as RangeRover appears to.

Perhaps you more intend the multiuniverse hypotheses?

In very short order the number of created worlds would far outnumber the number of evolved worlds, and after hundreds of millions of years the odds that we live in a created world where life was intelligently designed would be an almost absolute certinty.

Given multiuniverse scenario, do you believe there are some physical laws that would hold across all universes?

[Talavus]

Sorry Kurieuo,
I thought M-theory meant membrane theory, like our world was a layer of an onion and we just couldn't see the other parallel worlds because they don't occupy our same space. Sorry if I'm confusing the two. As I understood it multiple realities would be perfect copies of each other except for the different outcomes which would produce different futures. I didn't read the Discovery article,I saw a news article on FOXNews.com "Freaky Physics Proves Parallel Universes Exist" and had this idea, I just had to get it out of my head. I'm not a physicist, scientist, or even a colledge graduate. I'm just a scifi junkie take everything I post with a big bowl of pure salt.

[RangeRover]

I never said, nor do I think, Christians should "fear" the concept of an 11-dimensional multiverse. I merely made two points:

1. The concepts in the Discover article are contradictory;
2. There is no more scientific evidence for M-theory, the latest source of the multiverse model of Creation, than there is for any given religious belief.