The Multiverse

[lucaspa]

I thought it came out of trying to understand other things too such as why gravity is so weak.

Do you have a source? Everything I have seen has multiverse providing a way to avoid the odds.

Just because something did happen doesn't mean it wasn't very unlikely.

Double negative. Because the parameters are arbitrary and not tied to any underlying principle, it makes it unlikely that those particular values would be the ones you would find. If they are arbitrary, why not any of the other possible values? No reason why not. Without the reason, that makes any particular value out of a huge possible number of values "very unlikely". Just like one set of numbers in the lottery is unlikely or one particular hand in bridge is unlikely.

Now, in bridge we can play a game no matter what the hand is. But in the valued of the parameters, anything but those values means we are not here. So our presence becomes unlikely.

But if the lottery is played once and one person is give a ticket you might think it was rigged?

How is that relevant to the point I was making? The better analogy is if one person chose what the winning numbers would be. Then the lottery is no longer "chance". Of course, having the values of the constants chosen by an intelligent entity -- knowing that choice would produce life in the universe -- is the theory that God chose the parameters.

 

[jonmichael818]

In this case, "nothing" is not a vacuum. Vacuum occurs within a spacetime, but the absence of matter. The "nothing" prior to the Big Bang is no matter, no enery, no spacetime.



Virtual particles are borrowing energy from an existing spacetime. However, in some theories spactime itself is a quantum fluctuation. So the entire universe is one huge quantum fluctuation. The fact that the net energy of the universe = zero is consistent with that idea.

I agree mostly, except your statement, "The "nothing" prior to the Big Bang is no matter, no energy, no spacetime." This is an assumption, unless you just meant clarify the term "nothing."

 

[jonmichael818]

1. In terms of the physics we are talking about, God is not "something". The somethings we are talking about in the universe are matter, energy, spacetime.

If god is not "something" according to matter, energy, spacetime, (which is what makes up our entire reality) then how do you define god using that which does not exist as part of our reality.

2. You are using Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy. In terms of the science, God is a theory. So is multiverse. So is quantum fluctuation. All of them have the burden to "prove" that they exist and opponents have the burden to "prove" they do not exist. To shift the burden of proof onto only one side is the Shifting the Burden Fallacy.

Actually, I agree with you on this. I guess I spoke to soon. Some other atheists habits have rubbed off onto me.

"Absolute nothing" in this context is no matter, no energy, no space, no time. Period. One possibility is that the theories/equations that describe the universe have the power to create a universe for them to describe. No "proof" for that theory. No disproof, either.

Could you clarify what you mean by the possibility you are talking about?

 

[norswede]

I believe in the possibility of multiple dimensions which could very well end up proving the existence of God. The Bible speaks of multiple heavens and a realm of evil. These could easily be other dimensions sharing the same space as us. Some people are able to perceive these dimensions which explains how so many people claim to see ghosts, demons, angels etc. These dimensions most likely would not follow the same laws as our dimension which would account for what we call the supernatural.

 

[Harry3142]

At one time science taught that the universe was a 'steady-state universe'. There had been no beginning, and there would be no end. What was taking place now was the continuation of what had always taken place back through time ad infinitum. Albert Einstein was one of those who accepted this theory until it was proven to him that it was incorrect.

Because the universe was infinitely old there had been enough time for a planet such as ours to have given birth to lifeforms. The planet had literally always been here, so there had been ample time for life to have formed and then progressed to where we are now.

But starting in the 1920's a 'monkey wrench' was thrown into the theory. Instead of the universe's being infinitely old, there was evidence that it had formed at a certain point in time (for those who believe that time itself didn't begin until The Big Bang, since I believe that God himself existed before The Big Bang, then time also existed in some form prior to that point). Suddenly those scientists who had previously held to the belief that the universe had created the various lifeforms due to its nifinite age now had the constraint of a definite time when it all began as we know it.

The universe is now dated to 15 billion years old. Our own solar system is dated to no more than 5 billion years old. And this does not include the amount of time it took for the dust and debris to coalesce into solid and gaseous matter. So there are further constraints on the time that it took for life's progression to where we are now.

The scientists who can do the math realized how limited the time was that it had taken from the start of the universe to the present. So among other theories to explain how we arrived at the here-and-now, they advanced the theory of there being a multitude of universes (if you can't have an infinite amount of time for a universe to exist, then have an infinite number of universes coming into existence at the same time). With just one universe there is more of an argument for there being an Intelligent Designer than there would be if there were an infinite number of universes, one of which just happens to contain us.

 

[darknova]

Christians would say it is from god, but even god would be "something," and the burden of proof lies with them to prove that god exists.Scientists saying that there are laws that gave rise to something from nothing is still a non sequitur, because laws are still something. Absolute nothing is exactly what it says, "absolute nothing."

I'm not saying there ever was absolute nothing, just that it is logically possible if science and religion were wrong (because they never would have existed).

I don't mean evidence that they use to interpret that a god may exist, but evidence to show "here this IS god."

Sort of like if I asked to be shown gravity or a mind?

Double negative. Because the parameters are arbitrary and not tied to any underlying principle, it makes it unlikely that those particular values would be the ones you would find. If they are arbitrary, why not any of the other possible values? No reason why not. Without the reason, that makes any particular value out of a huge possible number of values "very unlikely". Just like one set of numbers in the lottery is unlikely or one particular hand in bridge is unlikely.

I know lifeless universes are just as unlikely, but it seems there would be more lifeless universes than life ones. Wonderfully lucky that ours happens to have life.

How is that relevant to the point I was making? The better analogy is if one person chose what the winning numbers would be. Then the lottery is no longer "chance". Of course, having the values of the constants chosen by an intelligent entity -- knowing that choice would produce life in the universe -- is the theory that God chose the parameters.

I forget but I think it helps make my point. Is the one person choosing in your analogy God or humans?

 

[jonmichael818]

Sort of like if I asked to be shown gravity or a mind?

There are issues with these kinds of questions. Gravity can be shown to exist without any trouble whatsoever, just you standing or sitting where you are is proof. Science simply says that it is fundamental force of nature because it is all around us. Now you could go with the argument that gravity is from god or is a characteristic of god, and therefore is in a way proof of gods existance. Indeed some people do use this argument, such as used in Jewish Kabbalah. In Kabbalah they have what are called the "Ten Sefirot." Two of the Sefirot are "Chesed and Gevurah." These two are reffered to as the push and pull phenomenon, and are often interpreted as the cosmological constant(push), and gravity(pull).
The difference between science and the religious is that one simply calls them forces of nature, and the other attributes them to a god.

As for the issue of the mind, this is another matter of debate. Some believe that the "mind" is nothing more than a phenomenon that emerges as a result of the processes of the physical brain in highly complex beings. Others believe that the "mind" is seperate from the physical body, as though the brain is a "receiver" of consciousness rather than a "projector" of consciousness. There are several scientific studies going on to try and determine this very thing. One major international study is: THE AWARE STUDY.

 

[semper_virens]

The multiverse is one of those ideas with no backing. Someone came up with it (hey, even I came up with the idea when I was 10) and thought "Hey, wouldn't that be cool?" and now it is presented as science. It is completely unsubstantiated fantasy.

 

[Yekcidmij]

Hi,

What do you have to say about the possiblity of a multiverse. If it is real then it would seem to disprove cosmological arguments and arguments based on the world looking it is designed.

Do you agree with it or have arguments against it??

It depends on what you mean by "multiverse". There is the multiverse posited by some interpretations of quantum mechanics then there is the multiverse posited by some inflationary theories, then there are things like M-theory.

Also, I'm not sure what cosmological argument is falsified by this. Cosmological arguments are generally a family of arguments. There are Leibnizian, kalaam, restricted PSR, etc.. cosmological arguments. Which one does it falsify?

It is true though that multiverses are posited in part to explain the Goldilocks enigma. The thinking goes, if there are an infinite number of universes, then one of them is bound to turn out just the way ours did.

 

[Chesterton]

"Universe" was meant to mean "everything there is" or "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated". So even if there are an infinite number of "multiverses" they still amount to a "universe". The word "multiverse" doesn't really solve any problem; it's just semantics.

 

[jonmichael818]

"Universe" was meant to mean "everything there is" or "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated". So even if there are an infinite number of "multiverses" they still amount to a "universe". The word "multiverse" doesn't really solve any problem; it's just semantics.

Actually, it is a possible solution to many problems that exist within physics. It is also a possible solution to the idea that the universe is fine tuned, and removes the idea that the universe's begining came from nothing.

 

[Chesterton]

Actually, it is a possible solution to many problems that exist within physics. It is also a possible solution to the idea that the universe is fine tuned,...

It is a possible solution, but for example, what if every "verse" is fine-tuned for something or other? Then it just makes the tuning problem much worse.

...and removes the idea that the universe's begining came from nothing.

I don't think anything can come from nothing. Even a quantum fluctuation requires that the "mechanics" exist previously, whether we call them laws, processes or magic or whatever.

 

[jonmichael818]

It is a possible solution, but for example, what if every "verse" is fine-tuned for something or other? Then it just makes the tuning problem much worse.

I agree it is just a possible solution, just like god is just a possible solution.

I don't think anything can come from nothing. Even a quantum fluctuation requires that the "mechanics" exist previously, whether we call them laws, processes or magic or whatever.

I agree. I do not think anything came from nothing. I believe there is no such thing as "nothing," which means there is no need for a creator. Something has always existed.

 

[lucaspa]

I agree mostly, except your statement, "The "nothing" prior to the Big Bang is no matter, no energy, no spacetime." This is an assumption, unless you just meant clarify the term "nothing."

It's a conclusion from the data, not an assumption.

 

[lucaspa]

I agree. I do not think anything came from nothing. I believe there is no such thing as "nothing," which means there is no need for a creator. Something has always existed.

As you stated, that's a belief. And a belief that means you can't be an agnostic. You need to pick a new label that more accurately reflects your beliefs. "Atheist" is the one that fits.

The data we have about our universe says that no matter, no energy, and no spacetime (everything that we know as "something") existed prior to the Big Bang.

you realize that "God" is a "something" that is said to always have existed to fill your criteria, don't you? What you mean is that something instead of a creator deity existed. What you have basically stated is Aristotle's position, which has been used as the "standard" position of atheists ever since. Aristotle, of course, meant that our universe has always existed. The data that led to Big Bang destroyed that position.

There are 3 hypotheses out there that offer alternative entities to deity as the "something" that caused the Big Bang:

1. The laws of the universe. In this idea the equations that describe the universe existed before the universe and had the power to make the universe real. Notice that this doesn't answer the parameters for life problem because those parameters are independent from the equations.

2. No Boundary. In this hypothesis the universe is a closed, finite system: finite but unbounded in Hawking's terminology. The universe just IS and does not need a creator. It also does not address the fine tuning problem and some parameters are arbitrarily chosen to make No Boundary possible. So it's not very satisfying from a physics standpoint.

3. Ekpyrotic. In this hypothesis that "something that always existed" is a 5 dimensional 'brane. Within this 5 D 'brane float 2 or more 4 D universes (like ours). By quantum fluctuation, one of these 4 D 'branes will give off a 'brane that floats thru the 5 D 'brane to collide with one of the 4 D 'branes. The collision is a Big Bang, destroying both 'branes and creating a new 4 D 'brane (universe). Ekpyrotic is based on String Theory (M theory).

 

[lucaspa]

"Universe" was meant to mean "everything there is" or "the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated". So even if there are an infinite number of "multiverses" they still amount to a "universe". The word "multiverse" doesn't really solve any problem; it's just semantics.

Actually, universe originally just meant the Milky Way galaxy. Andromeda, for a long time, was called an "island universe".

And talk about playing semantics! Universe as used in cosmology refers to the matter/energy/spacetime we are in. Which is why the term "multiverse" was used.

And yes, "multiverse" does solve the problem of the "fine-tuned" parameters we find in our universe.

 

[lucaspa]

how do you define god using that which does not exist as part of our reality.

As writtten that does not make any sense. "Our reality" started with the Big Bang. Whatever God used (as whatever the equations used) to start the Big Bang does not need to be "part of our reality".

I guess I spoke to soon. Some other atheists habits have rubbed off onto me.

I'm glad to see you using critical thinking on atheist positions as well. Well done.

Could you clarify what you mean by the possibility you are talking about?

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? "
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, pg 174.

 

[lucaspa]

Because the universe was infinitely old there had been enough time for a planet such as ours to have given birth to lifeforms. The planet had literally always been here, so there had been ample time for life to have formed and then progressed to where we are now.

13.7 billion years (the best data for the age of the universe) is more than enough time. It's time for several generations of stars. And 4.55 billion years for the age of the earth is more than enough time for abiogenesis and the evolution of the diversity of life we see today. Actually, natural selection can work up to 10,000 times faster than we see in the fossil record.

Our own solar system is dated to no more than 5 billion years old. And this does not include the amount of time it took for the dust and debris to coalesce into solid and gaseous matter.

Actually, that does include the time to coalesce. A 4.55 billion year old earth was a planet at that time. It was still undergoing numerous collisions and probably the crust was still molten until 4 billion years ago, but the first life appeared about 3.8 billion years ago. Shortly after the crust was solid, life appeared.

The scientists who can do the math realized how limited the time was that it had taken from the start of the universe to the present. So among other theories to explain how we arrived at the here-and-now, they advanced the theory of there being a multitude of universes (if you can't have an infinite amount of time for a universe to exist, then have an infinite number of universes coming into existence at the same time). With just one universe there is more of an argument for there being an Intelligent Designer than there would be if there were an infinite number of universes, one of which just happens to contain us.

I'm sorry, but multiverse doesn't have anything to do with time. It has to do with the physics parameters that are necessary for life to exist. If some of them -- such as the strong nuclear force -- are different by 1 part in a billion, atoms, and therefore life, could not exist. Having an infinite number of universes increases the odds that one of those universes would have the paramters. Of course, that one "just happens to contain us."

But to argue from the parameters to an Intelligent Designer is flawed if there is one universe. We don't have to be here. If the parameters were different, this universe would not "just happen to contain us" and no one would be considering the "problem". The idea that the parameters can be used to argue for an ID -- the Strong Anthropic Principle -- is simply faulty logic.

 

[Chesterton]

Actually, universe originally just meant the Milky Way galaxy. Andromeda, for a long time, was called an "island universe".

And talk about playing semantics! Universe as used in cosmology refers to the matter/energy/spacetime we are in. Which is why the term "multiverse" was used.

I pasted the dictionary definition (the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated) from Merriam-Webster's dictionary. Take it up with them.

And yes, "multiverse" does solve the problem of the "fine-tuned" parameters we find in our universe.

What if every "verse" is likewise fine-tuned? Or what if the verses interact(ed) in such a way that the un-tuned ones have an effect on the tuning of others? Or what if verses are like sperm, and the creation process produces a million of them which go to waste in order to produce one fruitful universe?

 

[lucaspa]

I know lifeless universes are just as unlikely, but it seems there would be more lifeless universes than life ones.

EXACTLY. That's the point I was making.

Wonderfully lucky that ours happens to have life.

And that means that we are here to wonder about the "problem". But if any of those lifeless universes had happened instead, we simply wouldn't be here wondering about the "problem".

However, that is unsatisfying to a physicist, so multiverse makes it less "lucky" in that one universe would certainly exist with the parameters that allows us.

Is the one person choosing in your analogy God or humans?

In the analogy of a lottery, the person choosing would be a human that "rigged" the lottery so that, say, his mother would win. He wanted his mother to win. So he chose the lottery numbers that corresponded with the lottery numbers she had: the one set out of millions that would result in his mother winning.

In the case of the parameters, among all those possible combinations of parameters, including all those combinations that would not give a universe where life is possible, the hypothesis is that God chose the parameters that would give life. Because He wanted a universe with life.