Doubts Linger Over Godless Multiverse

[Agonaces of Susa]

Above: proof there is a God.

"The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism." -- Lord Kelvin

"The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words." -- Lord Kelvin

Katy McAlpine: M-theory: Doubts linger over godless multiverse - physics-math - 14 September 2010 - New Scientist

STEPHEN HAWKING'S new book The Grand Design sparked a furore over whether physics can be used to disprove the existence of God. But few have noted that the idea at the core of the book, M-theory, is the subject of an ongoing scientific debate – specifically over the very aspect of the theory that might scrap the need for a divine creator.

That the laws of nature in our universe are finely tuned for life seems miraculous, leading some to invoke divine involvement. But if there is a multiverse out there – a multitude of universes, each with its own laws of physics – then the conditions we observe may not be unique.

Hawking suggests that M-theory, the leading interpretation of string theory, calls for a multiverse. Others are divided over the strength of this link. "My own opinion is that we don't understand the theory well enough to be able to say whether there is one single universe or a multitude of universes," says M-theorist Michael Duff of Imperial College London.

String theory's grand claim was that it would be able to unite quantum mechanics with general relativity. Until the mid-1990s, however, five different versions of it, each featuring 10 spatial dimensions, were vying with each other, along with a sixth model known as 11-dimensional super-membrane theory. M-theory stitched these six theories together into one overarching theory. But while these six areas are fairly well fleshed out in M-theory, other parts of the theory are threadbare.

One major gap is how and where the seven extra spatial dimensions, beyond the three we experience, are hidden. "The conventional view is that the extra dimensions are very small," Duff says. Alternatively, our universe could exist within a "bulk" that contains the extra spatial dimensions.

A multiverse is compatible with both pictures, so some versions of M-theory are constructed to include a multiverse. However, some theorists argue that being compatible with M-theory does not make a multiverse essential. Duff adds that with our current patchy understanding of M-theory, the multiverse seems plausible enough, but it might not work if we could see the bigger picture. Even then, assuming multiple universes remain mathematically possible, there would still be no proof that they are actually present.

For now, it is hard enough to test string theory, let alone M-theory. Two weeks ago, Duff and his colleagues made some progress by using string theory to make predictions about the behaviour of entangled quantum bits (Physical Review Letters, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.100507). This demonstrates that aspects of string theory can be tested in the laboratory, but won't reveal if it is "the right theory to describe all the elementary particles, the big bang – the 'grand design' as Stephen describes it", says Duff.

"It's dangerous to pin your beliefs on any theory of physics," Duff adds, "because it might turn out to be wrong. But if Stephen wants to stick his neck out, I wish him good luck."

 

[Doveaman]

Katy McAlpine: M-theory: Doubts linger over godless multiverse - physics-math - 14 September 2010 - New Scientist

"It's dangerous to pin your beliefs on any theory of physics," Duff adds, "because it might turn out to be wrong. But if Stephen wants to stick his neck out, I wish him good luck."

So The Grand Design is a book of faith then. Just as I thought.

 

[3sigma]

So The Grand Design is a book of faith then. Just as I thought.

So you are saying that it would be a mistake to base one’s beliefs entirely on faith?

 

[Bushido216]

In the immortal words of Geoff Peterson...

"Uh-ohh!!!"

 

[Doveaman]

So you are saying that it would be a mistake to base one’s beliefs entirely on faith?

That would depend on if it's scientific faith

or Biblical faith

.

 

[marktheblake]

So The Grand Design is a book of faith then. Just as I thought.

I read that article a couple of days ago and my first reaction was how ironic that statement was coming from a New Scientist editorial.

 

[3sigma]

That would depend on if it's scientific faith or Biblical faith

How?

 

[Nabobalis]

"The more thoroughly I conduct scientific research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism." -- Lord Kelvin

"The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words." -- Lord Kelvin

Are you an old earth creationist?

 

[Doveaman]

That would depend on if it's scientific faith or Biblical faith

How?

The scientific faith is faith in creation by unintelligent design:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." - Hawking, The Grand Design

The Biblical faith is faith in creation by intelligent design:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." - Genesis 1, The Holy Bible

Scientific faith makes blind and ignorant claims about the creation of the universe.

Biblical faith is inspired by the intelligent being who created the universe.

 

[Doveaman]

Are you an old earth creationist?

Yes I am. So is Mr. Hawking.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." - Hawking, The Grand Design

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Are you an old earth creationist?

Yes.

And as Doveaman points out so is Dr. Hawking.

 

[Nabobalis]

Yes I am. So is Mr. Hawking.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." - Hawking, The Grand Design

Just thought it was odd to quote Kelvin when:

Thomson was a creationist in a broad sense, but he was not a 'flood geologist'.[36] He contended that "This earth, certainly a moderate number of millions of years ago, was a red-hot globe ... ."[37]

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Just thought it was odd to quote Kelvin when:

Thomson was a creationist in a broad sense, but he was not a 'flood geologist'.[36] He contended that "This earth, certainly a moderate number of millions of years ago, was a red-hot globe ... ."[37]

So?

Must I agree with him on all points?

No.

He also believed in gravitation so he thought heavier than air flying machines are impossible due to gravity.

And just because I agree with Newton regarding Atlantis, Prisca Sapientia, alchemy, magic, and creationism, doesn't mean I have to agree with Newton on gravitation.

 

[Nabobalis]

So?

Must I agree with him on all points?

No.

He also believed in gravitation so he thought heavier than air flying machines are impossible due to gravity.

And just because I agree with Newton regarding Atlantis, Prisca Sapientia, alchemy, magic, and creationism, doesn't mean I have to agree with Newton on gravitation.

Just seems you like to cherry pick quotes from people in the past to support your view.

You take the quotes you like as infallible and quotes you don't like as wrong. No matter the evidence nor reality.

Just saying

 

[3sigma]

The scientific faith is faith in creation by unintelligent design
…
The Biblical faith is faith in creation by intelligent design

So what? Religious faith is belief without sound evidence or sound reasoning. How is scientific faith any different? How is it not a mistake to base one’s beliefs entirely on such faith?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Just seems you like to cherry pick quotes from people in the past to support your view.

You take the quotes you like as infallible and quotes you don't like as wrong. No matter the evidence nor reality.

Just saying

Welcome to planet Earth...

 

[3sigma]

Welcome to planet Earth...

A planet where millions of people believe in imaginary beings because they find it comforting and billions more use faulty arguments to keep their comforting beliefs alive.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

A planet where millions of people believe in imaginary beings because they find it comforting and billions more use faulty arguments to keep their comforting beliefs alive.

Try billions not millions.

2 billion Christians.

1 billion Hindus.

God knows how many scientists and atheists believe in imaginary beings and substances like gravitons, gravitational waves, black holes, neutron stars, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Flow, etc.

And yet these same atheists deny the existence of observed and observable Roman gods like the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

Go figure.

 

[3sigma]

Try billions not millions.

2 billion Christians.

1 billion Hindus.

When I said millions of people believe in imaginary beings, I was speaking of children who believe in Santa Claus and the few who believe in fairies, leprechauns, etc. Now you are telling us that the beings Christians and Hindus believe in are imaginary as well. That ‘s an interesting admission. How about the being 1.5 billion Muslims believe in; is that imaginary too? Do Christians, Hindus and Muslims also believe in those imaginary beings because they find the beliefs comforting?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

When I said millions of people believe in imaginary beings, I was speaking of children who believe in Santa Claus and the few who believe in fairies, leprechauns, etc. Now you are telling us that the beings Christians and Hindus believe in are imaginary as well. That ‘s an interesting admission. How about the being 1.5 billion Muslims believe in; is that imaginary too? Do Christians, Hindus and Muslims also believe in those imaginary beings because they find the beliefs comforting?

I assumed you were referring to the planets that atheists refer to as imaginary beings.

But yes, atheist scientists believe in imaginary beings too (listed above).

P.S. Faeries were real.

"They are embellished with magnificent palaces, in which dwell numerous Dánavas, Daityas, Yakshas, and great snake-gods. The Muni Nárada, after his return from those regions to the skies, declared amongst the celestials that Pátála was much more delightful than Indra's heaven. 'What,' exclaimed the sage, 'can be compared to Pátála, where the Nágas are decorated with brilliant and beautiful and pleasure-shedding jewels? who will not delight in Pátála, where the lovely daughters of the Daityas and Dánavas wander about, fascinating even the most austere; where the rays of the sun diffuse light, and not heat, by day; and where the moon shines by night for illumination, not for cold; where the sons of Danu, happy in the enjoyment of delicious viands and strong wines, know not how time passes? There are beautiful groves and streams and lakes where the lotus blows; and the skies are resonant with the Koïl's song. Splendid ornaments, fragrant perfumes, rich unguents, the blended music of the lute and pipe and tabor; these and many other enjoyments are the common portion of the Dánavas, Daityas, and snake-gods, who inhabit the regions of Pátála.'" - Vishnu Purana, Book II, Chapter 5, 8th century B.C.

"And the lord Sakra [Indra], the slayer of Vritra, then went to the three worlds surrounded by the gods together with the Gandharvas and the celestial nymphs." -- Mahabharata, Book V: Udyoga Parva, Section XVIII, 8th century B.C.