Multiverses are pseudo science, secularist, ideology

[Hans Blaster]

Or are you smarter than Weinberg?

You are aware that Weinberg is an atheist (so therefore doesn't by the "this proves god" notion), has written about the attacks of of religion (and others) and science including the book "Facing Up: Science and Its Cultural Adversaries", and is known for his quote (paraphrased) "On their own good people will do good, bad people will do evil, but it takes religion to make good people do evil", right?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

“I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in ... No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized" (Weinberg).

Inflation theories do just that, as does String theory. As Weinberg himself said. "string theory, which predicts a multiverse". String theory is a mathematical physics theory.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... What problems, beyond countering the fine-tuning argument, does a multiverse speculation resolve in physics?

As I said previously, multiverses are predictions of theories that themselves have explanatory power. There is no requirement for a prediction, implication, or consequence of a theory to resolve problems. But the inflationary multiverse predicts a specific distortion of the CMB if two universes come into contact, so it would be an explanation if such a distortion was observed.

 

[Bradskii]

1. The multiverse possibility destroys a number of famous "proofs" of God and arguments for God.

2. Many Christians have resisted any cosmological notion that contradicts or adds to the account of the cosmos as literally presented literally in Genesis. Some Christians hold a more mythical view of the creation account, which is adaptable to new findings or possibilities. But many cling to a literalism which cant admit another universe(s).

Agreed. But I don't consider the proofs to be valid in any case. And it certainly discounts a fundamentalist reading of scripture. So it denies the creationist God - and you'll generally find those who tend to that belief are the most vociferous against the possibility of a multiverse.

But there are many Christians who figuratively shrug their shoulders when a multiverse is proposed and effectively ask 'So what?'

 

[Bradskii]

Multiverse as a place-marker to allow a model to be further examined is fine as long as we remember that multiverse remains an unsupported assumption in need of an observation.

So you have no problem with it being an implication (as opposed to an assumption). But which didn't answer the question as to whether a multiverse would contradict any of your religious beliefs.

I'd just like to know if your rejection of a multiverse is more a scientific objection or a religious one.

 

[sjastro]

Given the ratio between Λ and the vacuum energy density (which I called "V" above), then it would seem that V ~ c²Lp⁻². This reeks of "naturalness" preference in field theory, a notion that unitless combinations and ratios of constants should be about 1. I'm not familiar with the calculations that went into deriving the vacuum energy, but given this I'm beginning to wonder...

The vacuum energy density associated with the cosmological constant can be calculated from the equation derived from the Friedmann equations.

ρ = Λ/8πG = (1.1 x 10⁻⁵²)/(8π x 6.7 x 10⁻¹¹) ≈ 3.4 x 10⁻⁴⁷ GeV⁴.

The vacuum energy density calculated from quantum field theories is around 120 orders of magnitude higher.

On the value of the cosmological constant it is a problem in physics the value has to be fine tuned which differs from zero from the 52nd decimal place (or 122nd decimal place using the Planck length).
If ρ was fractionally higher but still a extremely small number the repulsive force would cause the universe to expand too fast and there would not be enough time for the formation of gravitationally bound systems such as galaxies.

 

[o_mlly]

So you have no problem with it being an implication (as opposed to an assumption). But which didn't answer the question as to whether a multiverse would contradict any of your religious beliefs.

I'd just like to know if your rejection of a multiverse is more a scientific objection or a religious one.

No. I wrote it seems rational to allow the speculation of a multiverse as an assumption to further the analysis of a mathematical model.

One is hard pressed to comment on the implications of yet another assumption's effects on the existing assumption without knowing expressly what is the new assumption. Presuming both assumptions are independent variables in the model, one would presume any implications introduced by the new assumption would manifest primarily as changes in value(s) of the dependent variables. Maybe not. Only moving to the concrete could resolve.

The existence or non-existence of the multiverse does not contradict my faith. Relative to the fine-tuning argument the multiverse is simply a revised idea of the universe. The speculation needs refinement, eg., multiple singularities (oxymoron?) then multiple big bangs must be proposed but evidentiality are impossible to detect; fusion or fission of the universe -- but the forces do not change in daughter "verses". Or what?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

No. I wrote it seems rational to allow the speculation of a multiverse as an assumption to further the analysis of a mathematical model.

One is hard pressed to comment on the implications of yet another assumption's effects on the existing assumption without knowing expressly what is the new assumption. Presuming both assumptions are independent variables in the model, one would presume any implications introduced by the new assumption would manifest primarily as changes in value(s) of the dependent variables. Maybe not. Only moving to the concrete could resolve.

The existence or non-existence of the multiverse does not contradict my faith. Relative to the fine-tuning argument the multiverse is simply a revised idea of the universe. The speculation needs refinement, eg., multiple singularities (oxymoron?) then multiple big bangs must be proposed but evidentiality are impossible to detect; fusion or fission of the universe -- but the forces do not change in daughter "verses". Or what?

It is becoming more and more obvious that you do not understand the difference between an implication and and an assumption. one can have an assumption based on an implication and see what that would imply, but your use is that assumptions such as yours of a god must are taken as fact in all further discussions. This is not the way it is done in science. Hence why you cannot state or justify your assumptions.

 

[Bradskii]

One is hard pressed to comment on the implications of yet another assumption's effects on the existing assumption without knowing expressly what is the new assumption. Presuming both assumptions are independent variables in the model, one would presume any implications introduced by the new assumption would manifest primarily as changes in value(s) of the dependent variables.

You're not related to Sir Humphrey Appleby by any chance?

 

[o_mlly]

It is becoming more and more obvious that you do not understand the difference between an implication and and an assumption. one can have an assumption based on an implication and see what that would imply, but your use is that assumptions such as yours of a god must are taken as fact in all further discussions. This is not the way it is done in science. Hence why you cannot state or justify your assumptions.

It's becoming more and more obvious that English is not your first language. If it is then the problem may be worse.

 

[sjastro]

The vacuum energy density associated with the cosmological constant can be calculated from the equation derived from the Friedmann equations.

ρ = Λ/8πG = (1.1 x 10⁻⁵²)/(8π x 6.7 x 10⁻¹¹) ≈ 3.4 x 10⁻⁴⁷ GeV⁴.

The vacuum energy density calculated from quantum field theories is around 120 orders of magnitude higher.

On the value of the cosmological constant it is a problem in physics the value has to be fine tuned which differs from zero from the 52nd decimal place (or 122nd decimal place using the Planck length).
If ρ was fractionally higher but still a extremely small number the repulsive force would cause the universe to expand too fast and there would not be enough time for the formation of gravitationally bound systems such as galaxies.

Another problem confronting cosmologists is the 'cosmic coincidence problem'.
As the universe expands the scale factor 'a' changes with time.
The matter density of the universe decreases with time according to;

The radiation density decreases as;

The dark energy density remains constant;

This leads to an amazing coincidence that after 14 billion years of expansion the matter density and dark energy density are equivalent today at the current cosmological background temperature Tₒ.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

It's becoming more and more obvious that English is not your first language. If it is then the problem may be worse.

Oops I did make a mistake, are should have been be, but a better question is, if not English, in what language are your posts intelligible and logical since I seem to have more co-linquists than you?

ETA, a typo.

Now do you have a positive argument, or only a set of negative "if not this it might be otherwise" arguments?

 

[o_mlly]

You're not related to Sir Humphrey Appleby by any chance?

And exactly when did you stop praying?

 

[o_mlly]

Oops I did make a mistake, are should have been be, but a better question is, if not English, in what language are your posts intelligible and logical since I seem to have more co-linquists than you?

ETA, a typo.

Now do you have a positive argument, or only a set of negative "if not this it might be otherwise" arguments?

GIGO.

 

[Bradskii]

And exactly when did you stop praying?

When I became aware of people like you and AV. It made me think that if people can be so obviously wrong when they deny basic science in preference to their scripture then maybe the whole edifice needs to be examined a little more closely.

A belated thanks to you as a representative of those people.

 

[o_mlly]

When I became aware of people like you and AV. It made me think that if people can be so obviously wrong when they deny basic science in preference to their scripture then maybe the whole edifice needs to be examined a little more closely.

A belated thanks to you as a representative of those people.

We only deny bad science. You're still on the prayer list.

 

[Bradskii]

We only deny bad science. You're still on the prayer list.

And 'bad science' is...that science that contradicts scripture. Shall we try it for an example?

How old is the planet?

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Just out of curiosity, who here is a scientist?

 

[Ophiolite]

It's becoming more and more obvious that English is not your first language. If it is then the problem may be worse.

The alternative explanation is that your reading comprehension is the problem. That's certainly a kinder explanation than the thought that you are just looking for further opportunities to deliver snide little ad hominems.
The majority of your posts seem devoted to attacking other members, rarely attacking their arguments, and almost never making a well supported case for your own position. I wonder what your motive for posting here is. I wonder if you even know.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

........ ................

The Integrated Information Theory of Consciousness | Issue 121 | Philosophy Now

A FYI article about consciousness.
I'm only 3 paragraphs in - but you may be interested. We were talking about consciousness the other day (well - mentioned it).
I wonder what these guys (and girls) think about it all.

If you read it - let me know what you think?

Or if anyone else reads it - let me know what you think.