Multiverses are pseudo science, secularist, ideology

[Bungle_Bear]

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

That's a nice, fantastic argument you present in such a gay manner.

 

[Ophiolite]

Actually for myself it doesn’t matter too much because I believe that reality itself is by default a highly organized thing,

If you saw my office you might reassess that position.

 

[Vap841]

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.

I’m definitely behind the 8 ball I had no clue that universe is now supposed to mean causally isolated volumes. What do you mean by the context they needed to describe? And so what word are we now supposed to use inside the loop of cosmology to refer to absolutely everything that’s physical?

 

[SelfSim]

And so what word are we now supposed to use inside the loop of cosmology to refer to absolutely everything that’s physical?

That term, of 'physical', is almost completely useless in cosmology discussions. Its a philosophical term .. like 'material' is.

 

[Vap841]

That term, of 'physical', is almost completely useless in cosmology discussions. Its a philosophical term .. like 'material' is.

If that’s true then it would only mean that cosmology is in the habit of also doing philosophy

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I’m definitely behind the 8 ball I had no clue that universe is now supposed to mean causally isolated volumes. What do you mean by the context they needed to describe? And so what word are we now supposed to use inside the loop of cosmology to refer to absolutely everything that’s physical?

I can't say I've ever heard a word for an ensemble of different multiverses; they're generally used in particular contexts. Variations on the Inflationary multiverse are probably the most discussed. The Wikipedia article gives a reasonable summary.

 

[Vap841]

I can't say I've ever heard a word for an ensemble of different multiverses; they're generally used in particular contexts. Variations on the Inflationary multiverse are probably the most discussed. The Wikipedia article gives a reasonable summary.

Oh they changed the meaning of universe to include discussions of multiverses? I was just talking about the classic meaning of universe that means everything that’s out there in space

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If that’s true then it would only mean that cosmology is in the habit of also doing philosophy

It's sparked a lot of metaphysical discussion, such as whether something can be considered 'real' if it can't have any influence or interaction with our universe (but this applies to what lies beyond our cosmic horizon, and we're as sure as we can be that there is stuff beyond), or whether a prediction that can't be tested is 'scientific' (this is where many cling to Popperian falsifiability).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oh they changed the meaning of universe to include discussions of multiverses?

I was just talking about the classic meaning of universe that means everything that’s out there in space

The universe once meant the Milky Way galaxy; when other galaxies were discovered they were called 'island universes'. When it became clear that there was probably stuff beyond our ken, our universe became the observable universe. When it became apparent that there might be other spaces potentially full of stuff that we can never observe, they were called other universes, and the ensemble of possible universes was called the multiverse. That's how the usage/language evolved - I don't think it was thought out in advance, but that terminology is what stuck.

 

[SelfSim]

If that’s true then it would only mean that cosmology is in the habit of also doing philosophy

It's sparked a lot of metaphysical discussion, ..

Lol .. there goes that term again .. (this time its rolled into something which is apparently different from the originally cosmologically meaningless term: 'physical' .. ).

So what we apparently have now, is a new meaningless term: 'metaphysical', which was somehow derived from its originally meaningless term: 'physical'!

Gotta have a good ol belly-laugh here ..

 

[Vap841]

It's sparked a lot of metaphysical discussion, such as whether something can be considered 'real' if it can't have any influence or interaction with our universe (but this applies to what lies beyond our cosmic horizon, and we're as sure as we can be that there is stuff beyond), or whether a prediction that can't be tested is 'scientific' (this is where many cling to Popperian falsifiability).

Yeah I don’t know why we would exclude things from being called real if we had reason to believe that it exists, as far as I’m concerned it would just create two categories of ‘Real’, real things that are causally influential to our universe, and real things that are causally inert to it.

 

[SelfSim]

The universe once meant the Milky Way galaxy; when other galaxies were discovered they were called 'island universes'. When it became clear that there was probably stuff beyond our ken, our universe became the observable universe. When it became apparent that there might be other spaces potentially full of stuff that we can never observe, they were called other universes, and the ensemble of possible universes was called the multiverse. That's how the usage/language evolved - I don't think it was thought out in advance, but that terminology is what stuck.

Yeah .. its disgraceful situation, really.

It think the MV viewpoint might have an unstated Infinite Universe context lurking around there somewhere .. then there are different types of those Infinites, eh?

 

[Vap841]

Lol .. there goes that term again .. (this time its rolled into something which is apparently different from the originally cosmologically meaningless term: 'physical' .. ).

So what we apparently have now, is a new meaningless term: 'metaphysical', which was somehow derived from its originally meaningless term: 'physical'!

Gotta have a good ol belly-laugh here ..

Physical meaning that you could weigh something, or see it, or detect it’s influence on material, etc. Metaphysical being teleological speculation on why things act, interact, weigh the way that they do etc, if things could have been different, if things are actually different in some other place where we can’t weigh, detect, and objectively analyze, etc

 

[SelfSim]

Yeah I don’t know why we would exclude things from being called real if we had reason to believe that it exists, as far as I’m concerned it would just create two categories of ‘Real’, real things that are causally influential to our universe, and real things that are causally inert to it.

Looking at it from a theoretical prediction viewpoint, one might say that some hypothetical cosmology may make untestable predictions .. but the hypothesis, itself, contains a lot of inference and logic buildup.
One can then draw a distinction which I call 'Objective Reality' (meaning something which has passed the (empirical) objective tests). Just because a prediction might be currently untestable, doesn't mean it'll always be that way ... but it will remain as 'something' distinct from what science considers as part Objectively Reality until it does.

 

[Vap841]

When it became apparent that there might be other spaces potentially full of stuff that we can never observe

Ok this is the part where I got left behind lol, I must have been watching too many Netflix shows when this happened, or I just never read enough about cosmology to come across this

 

[SelfSim]

Physical meaning that you could weigh something, or see it, or detect it’s influence on material, etc. Metaphysical being teleological speculation on why things act, interact, weigh the way that they do etc, if things could have been different, if things are actually different in some other place where we can’t weigh, detect, and objectively analyze, etc

I, personally, can't much be bothered with definitions which rely on speculative 'why' questions .. they're, like, worth less than a dime a dozen .. There's more productive ways to spend time, IMHO.

 

[HitchSlap]

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

I'll go with consensus.

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

If you're saying an observable universe is less likely than an unobserved god/s, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

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

Have you ever stopped to really think why most scientists don't believe in god/s?

As for religious movies, there seems to be quite a few out there.

List of religious films - Wikipedia

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

Not so much countering (as this implies there's something to counter), but rather the god/s hypothesis are simply unnecessary. Every scientific discovery ever, has had a natural explanation. In fact, science proceeds as if you never posted this OP. *

*BTW, feel free to start a new thread if scientists ever make a scientific discovery proving god/s as the reason.

#5 The concept of multiverses states: we don't need God to explain our improbable universe.

Correct. No god/s need for the hypothesis.

There are an infinite number of parallel universes (multiverses). Ours is simply the parallel universe where a large number of improbable events occurred.

...

Interesting ideas, to be sure.

 

[SelfSim]

Ok this is the part where I got left behind lol, I must have been watching too many Netflix shows when this happened, or I just never read enough about cosmology to come across this

Lol ..

What's really, (demonstrably), going on there, is a mind exploring its own perceptions of what it thinks might be out there.
IOW, its more a commentary on the way our minds dream up these ideas .. That's the more interesting aspect for me ... rather than the content of what it comes up with ..

 

[Vap841]

I, personally, can't much be bothered with definitions which rely on speculative 'why' questions .. they're, like, worth less than a dime a dozen .. There's more productive ways to spend time, IMHO.

I feel semi bipolar with it. Sometimes I think to myself enough already with the boring A, B, Cs of mechanisms yawn I’d rather think about the whys instead; then I’ll have moments where I’m like enough already with the less grounded deep thoughts it’s driving me crazy please give me some firmly grounded A, B, C concepts to chew on instead lol

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It think the MV viewpoint might have an unstated Infinite Universe context lurking around there somewhere .. then there are different types of those Infinites, eh?

If this universe is spatially infinite, then there's an infinity of universes in the cosmological multiverse, and if eternal inflation is correct, there is an infinity of 'pocket' universes being created, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are other potential sources of infinite universes... In some models, each pocket universe can create other universes (through black holes) but I don't think that counts as a different kind of infinity - you'd have to ask a theoretical cosmologist.