Multiverses are pseudo science, secularist, ideology

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The odds being so overwhelming that there exists another world possible of sustaining life, that scientific philosophers still cannot get around the Boltzmann Brain problem. The Boltzmann problem, in the nutshell, is that the odds of there existing another life-sustaining world is so overwhelming that it is more probable that we are occasionally popping in and out of the equilibrium and experiencing reality.

The Boltzmann Brain problem isn't to do with the odds of life on other worlds. It's that even in a universe at thermodynamic equilibrium there is a possibility of atoms spontaneously assembling into clusters, including chance assembly of functioning (albeit extremely short-lived) brains - and predictions suggest that the existence of the universe approaching and at thermodynamic equilibrium is so long (possibly infinitely long) that even given the infinitesimally small probabilities of Boltzmann brain assembly, the overall number of Boltzmann brains will vastly outnumber evolved human brains... and therefore you're vastly more likely to be a Boltzmann brain than an evolved human.

It's an interesting idea, but there are some serious problems with it...

 

[Vap841]

That's the claim, but it is false.

I can't think of a single physical constant that if altered by 1 part in 10^11 (a billionth of a percent) would matter a single bit to the development of life.

Oh ok, I’m definitely no expert. I’m just throwing out things I’ve heard in passing I’m not big on the fine tuning argument. One thing I remember coming across was that it used to be something like 30 constants but they figured out that some of them were not so, that they mirror other constants that are the crucial constants. But this would all go out the window of course if you’re right and the number of constants that can’t be tweaked are now down to 0 lol

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The reality is that, however many of these postulated mutually-inaccessible regions of temporal there are, by definition every one of them is part of a single universe.

Semantics is important. Sloppy definitions lead inexorably to sloppy questions and sloppy conclusions.

As Wittgenstein said, the meaning of words lies in their usage, and usage is constantly in flux. When the majority of experts in a field are using an old word in a new way, that's what it has come to mean in that field. Sometimes that usage spreads into the public domain, and sometimes it doesn't.

The meaning of 'universe' in cosmology has changed from 'our galaxy' to 'everything observable' to 'everything that exists' and now to variations on the theme of 'causally isolated volumes'. It has done so because cosmologists wanted a meaning more precisely appropriate to the contexts they needed to describe - IOW, to avoid sloppy definitions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oh ok, I’m definitely no expert. I’m just throwing out things I’ve heard in passing I’m not big on the fine tuning argument. One thing I remember coming across was that it used to be something like 30 constants but they figured out that some of them were not so, that they mirror other constants that are the crucial constants. But this would all go out the window of course if you’re right and the number of constants that can’t be tweaked are now down to 0 lol

Yeah, we simply don't know how many (if any) are really independently fine-tuned or whether they would all necessarily 'fall out' of a theory of everything.

The various multiverse ideas are predictions of physical theories, they weren't invented to solve fine-tuning. Many (most?) physicists find a statistical solution of that kind unsatisfying, they'd much rather find some physical reason why the constants have the values they have - although some are becoming resigned to it, given that String Theory seems to suggest a vast number of possible universes with differing constants.

 

[SelfSim]

The various multiverse ideas are predictions of physical theories,

Hmm .. a prediction falls onto the boundary zone of what is a testable belief.
MVs aren't testable beyond the theories which predict them (suspending belief in Penrose for the moment) .. which flops them back into the belief category as far as I can best determine(?)

they weren't invented to solve fine-tuning. Many (most?) physicists find a statistical solution of that kind unsatisfying, they'd much rather find some physical reason why the constants have the values they have - although some are becoming resigned to it, given that String Theory seems to suggest a vast number of possible universes with differing constants.

I guess String Theory, even with all its criticisms, gives theoretical Physicists a basis of consistency for exploring any theoretical correspondences those other theoretical universes may conceivably exhibit, (if any), with our own objectively real universe(?)

 

[SelfSim]

That's the claim, but it is false.

I can't think of a single physical constant that if altered by 1 part in 10^11 (a billionth of a percent) would matter a single bit to the development of life.

This one's got me thinking/curious
Any chance of some more clarifying words there?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh ok, I’m definitely no expert. I’m just throwing out things I’ve heard in passing I’m not big on the fine tuning argument. One thing I remember coming across was that it used to be something like 30 constants but they figured out that some of them were not so, that they mirror other constants that are the crucial constants. But this would all go out the window of course if you’re right and the number of constants that can’t be tweaked are now down to 0 lol

It isn't that there aren't limits on the life-permitting variation in the physical constants, there are. There are constants that if changed enough would prevent stars from forming, and thus planets with life.

The tightest restriction on life as we know it based on carbon, is a shift in one of the parameters of the strong nuclear force by a few percent that would eliminate the resonance that allows carbon to form in stars and make carbon formation rather difficult. Might life have formed in a different way, perhaps. We don't know.

 

[SelfSim]

It isn't that there aren't limits on the life-permitting variation in the physical constants, there are. There are constants that if changed enough would prevent stars from forming, and thus planets with life.

The tightest restriction on life as we know it based on carbon, is a shift in one of the parameters of the strong nuclear force by a few percent that would eliminate the resonance that allows carbon to form in stars and make carbon formation rather difficult.

I think what's even more difficult is even trying to discuss the scenario(?)
Every meaning of the concepts/models you mention there, instantly disappears (eg: carbon, resonance, etc).
The stance of the overviewing person commentating on such an alternative universe would have to be removed from the scenario also .. (and so too the meanings conveyed by that commentator).

Might life have formed in a different way, perhaps. We don't know.

(Yep .. Thanks ..)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hmm .. a prediction falls onto the boundary zone of what is a testable belief.

A prediction in science is a hypothesis; if there is a belief associated it is that there might be some benefit in discovering whether it is correct.

MVs aren't testable beyond the theories which predict them (suspending belief in Penrose for the moment) .. which flops them back into the belief category as far as I can best determine(?)

A theoretical prediction isn't a belief in my book, it's an implication of a theory. Individual scientists may or may not believe that it is correct, but that's a personal matter. Many theories make some untestable predictions, but it seems to me that one's priors for the untestable predictions of a well-tested theory ought to be higher than for untestable predictions with no theoretical basis; IOW, my priors would be higher for a prediction of GR than for a prediction of a 'psychic'.

 

[Bradskii]

The Boltzmann Brain problem isn't to do with the odds of life on other worlds. It's that even in a universe at thermodynamic equilibrium there is a possibility of atoms spontaneously assembling into clusters, including chance assembly of functioning (albeit extremely short-lived) brains - and predictions suggest that the existence of the universe approaching and at thermodynamic equilibrium is so long (possibly infinitely long) that even given the infinitesimally small probabilities of Boltzmann brain assembly, the overall number of Boltzmann brains will vastly outnumber evolved human brains... and therefore you're vastly more likely to be a Boltzmann brain than an evolved human.

It's an interesting idea, but there are some serious problems with it...

I, for one, welcome our new alien overlords.

 

[chilehed]

The meaning of 'universe' in cosmology has changed from 'our galaxy' to 'everything observable' to 'everything that exists' and now to variations on the theme of 'causally isolated volumes'. It has done so because cosmologists wanted a meaning more precisely appropriate to the contexts they needed to describe - IOW, to avoid sloppy definitions.

That may have been what they wanted, but it certainly isn't what they achieved.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That may have been what they wanted, but it certainly isn't what they achieved.

From what I've read, they're happy with it, and most people I know outside of physics seem to have a pretty good idea of what it means - albeit some of them have a comic-book view of the concept.

 

[chilehed]

From what I've read, they're happy with it,

Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that it's sloppy semantics.

and most people I know outside of physics seem to have a pretty good idea of what it means

That it indicates multiple, mutually inaccessible regions of space within the one universe? I'm not so sure of that, given that cosmologists are using the term to mean almost exactly the opposite of that.

- albeit some of them have a comic-book view of the concept.

Like the view that they're actually different universes, and that somehow means that there can be an infinitely regressing series of prior universes? Yeah, that's pretty comical.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Perhaps, but that doesn't change the fact that it's sloppy semantics.

If you insist.

That it indicates multiple, mutually inaccessible regions of space within the one universe? I'm not so sure of that, given that cosmologists are using the term to mean almost exactly the opposite of that.

There are several different types of multiverse. That one is sometimes known as the 'Cosmological multiverse'.

Like the view that they're actually different universes, and that somehow means that there can be an infinitely regressing series of prior universes? Yeah, that's pretty comical.

No. The view that they're different universes doesn't imply an infinite regression of prior universes. Some multiverse models have an infinite regression, some don't.

 

[Freodin]

It's a term that indicates "multiple universes",which by definition is a contradiction in terms.

A contradiction in terms doesn't become otherwise merely because more than one person uses it.

Let me guess... you are really upset about atoms, are you?

 

[Freodin]

But isn’t the point that there’s something like 20 constants that if you altered any one of them by even a billionth of a percent things like life, gravitational solar systems, etc, would be impossible? And as far as I understood it this is why people come back and reply that maybe there are infinite universes, and the settings of our universe is the winner of a cosmic lottery (so there are trillions of other universes out there that are perhaps just huge clouds of dust that have no organization to them). So that it’s not about fine tuned as compared to other universes, but about being fine tuned to meet strict conditions so that something works. For instance I could say that a truck was built very well if it serves me with minimal issues for 50 years, even if I have never seen any other vehicles in my life to compare it to and I don’t really know how long trucks are supposed to run for. Ok I get it that maybe you could say that I’m ignorant to the fact that other universes are better designed and they last 20 times longer than our universe, but I’m just talking about the level of fine tuning for something to work compared to it not working.

But doesn’t that actually make the point? If the rules for the formation of something to work are more & more strict then the stricter those rules become the less & less likely that it happening by accident is feasible. So that it wouldn’t be too far fetched to see a piece of paper that got smooshed and creased many times successfully fly like a paper airplane, and to conclude that it was just accidental coincidence that it got folded in all the right ways, but by contrast it would become unreasonable to claim that a real airplane successfully flies because it got accidentally formed in all of the right ways.

I know that it is not an easy concept to understand, but once you get the point, you would see the problem.

It's not that you have no comparisons for your observations... it's that no comparisons exist.
There is no measure for how long a truck should run. There is no truck. There is no run. There is no how long. Nothing of that exists, nothing that connects these things... until you create it. And how you create it is the way it is, and will work... because there is nothing to say otherwise.

The paper you smoosh... in our world it either flies or doesn't fly... because there is all the rest of the universe that determined if it does or doesn't. It has to conform to existing rules in order to fly or fall.

That is the problem with this concept.
You are stating that the piece of paper must be in a certain configuration in order to fly... and all you do is trying to find out how it got into this configuration: by chance or design.
But now consider that these rules the paper has to conform to do not exist. You smoosh your paper... AND you determine if it is going to fly or not.

Do you understand the problem?

 

[Vap841]

I know that it is not an easy concept to understand, but once you get the point, you would see the problem.

It's not that you have no comparisons for your observations... it's that no comparisons exist.
There is no measure for how long a truck should run. There is no truck. There is no run. There is no how long. Nothing of that exists, nothing that connects these things... until you create it. And how you create it is the way it is, and will work... because there is nothing to say otherwise.

The paper you smoosh... in our world it either flies or doesn't fly... because there is all the rest of the universe that determined if it does or doesn't. It has to conform to existing rules in order to fly or fall.

That is the problem with this concept.
You are stating that the piece of paper must be in a certain configuration in order to fly... and all you do is trying to find out how it got into this configuration: by chance or design.
But now consider that these rules the paper has to conform to do not exist. You smoosh your paper... AND you determine if it is going to fly or not.

Do you understand the problem?

Actually for myself it doesn’t matter too much because I believe that reality itself is by default a highly organized thing, so I guess a fine tuning argument would mean more or less to someone based on where they start from. If they believe that ours is one of trillions of universes that won a cosmic lottery then the fine tuning argument could impress them, but it sounds like you look at reality the way that I do, are you basically saying that it means nothing because this is simply what reality looks like, and it can’t prove one way or another if there is a God? But I suppose that would still be Pantheism. However in a Christian forum Pantheism is almost the same as just saying atheism anyway, I’m thinking that the default meaning of God around here has to refer to a grand consciousness that’s attached to ultimate reality, and who cares, and who makes decisions that benefit us.

I was trying to see the argument through someone else’s eyes, why some people love it

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

#1 Reality and the universe as observed by science are improbable.

How do you know? What is the probability? Have you calculated it?

#2 Said improbability makes God or a Creator the most likely explanation for reality as we observe it.

You cannot know that. How have you ruled out other explanations that you don't know about?

#3 Atheists in science and hollywood biased against God seek to undermine these observations and precedents.

Slander and a misunderstanding about how science works.

#4 To counter the idea of God being the most likely explanation for our improbable universe. Secularists devised the concept of multiverses.

#5 The concept of multiverses states: we don't need God to explain our improbable universe. There are an infinite number of parallel universes (multiverses). Ours is simply the parallel universe where a large number of improbable events occurred.

...

No one is proposing the multiverse as the solution and they did not propose it to counter a God claim. They are proposing it as a possible solution to investigate. No credible scientist says the multiverse has been proven to be real. It is just a hypothesis.

 

[public hermit]

#1 Reality and the universe as observed by science are improbable.

Here's the thing. The moment you bring probability into the discussion, you admit to the possibility. To say that an atheist's conception of reality(science is neutral, chances are what you really mean is "atheist"), to say that an atheist's conception of reality and the universe is improbable is to admit that it is not very probable, but probable nonetheless. In other words, such a world is possible. If such a world is possible, then the actual world we are in could be just such a possible world. In other words, by allowing for the probability, you tacitly admit that the actual world could be just as the atheist imagines it to be. Since these kinds of arguments have never convinced anyone, and since this particular one doesn't work because few people actually know how to apply Bayes' theorem in their work-a-day experience, how about finding a better argument because it's embarrassing. Thank you.

 

[RDKirk]

My point was that the concept of a multiverse is not incompatible with the concept of God, and in fact they could even go together.

The existence of at least a couple parallel universes would answer some biblical questions.