The Multiverse

[jonmichael818]

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

Actually we have no idea what happened before 10 -43 seconds, therefore to conclude anything is essentially an assumption, or at best a theory.

 

[jonmichael818]

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.

While it is my belief(perhaps suspicion is a better word), I am in no way certain and so I consider myself an agnostic. But you are right, I am for all practical purposes an atheist, though not one with a big A.

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.

Again, before 10 -43 seconds is unknown.

you realize that "God" is a "something" that is said to always have existed to fill your criteria, don't you?

Yes I do. Which is why I still hold out for the possibility that a god (however unlikely) may exist.

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.

For a time it may have destroyed it, but there are many alternate positons.

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).

Yes I am familiar with Hawking-Hartle's work, brane cosmology, The Big Bounce, Inflation, and others which may be different versions of multiverse ideas. Lee Smolin's got a theory called "Fecund Universes," aka "Cosmological Natural Selection."

There is also some speculation that time may not exist as a fundamental part of reality, but that it is an emergent property of the human mind. All very interesting stuff. Hopefully the LHC will tells us something more, soon.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

You pasted a definition. Not "the" definition. If you look at the definitions at Universe - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the one that applies to this discussion is: "c (1) : the entire celestial cosmos "

You need to look at the definition that applies to the situation, instead of playing semantics and picking one definition and telling us it is "the" definition.

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?

Speculation that goes waaaaay beyond the speculation of multiverse to begin with. Since we don't see or have data on any of those universes, those speculations are, at this point, not worth considering. Nor are they part of multiverse.

I will say that the last speculation doesn't change anything about multiverse providing an alternative to deity as a way to get around the fine-tuning "problem". It's just like multiverse: lots of universes going to "waste" so that one of them has the parameters that allow us to exist.

The second to last also provides another alternative to deity for the fine-tuning. If the multiverses interact to provide a mechanism to tune some to the parameters we have, you have an alternative to deity having to choose these particular parameters.

 

[Chesterton]

You pasted a definition. Not "the" definition. If you look at the definitions at Universe - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the one that applies to this discussion is: "c (1) : the entire celestial cosmos "

You need to look at the definition that applies to the situation, instead of playing semantics and picking one definition and telling us it is "the" definition.

Fine Dr. Pedant. I pasted "a" definition.

Speculation that goes waaaaay beyond the speculation of multiverse to begin with.

Nah, I think one good speculation deserves another.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

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??

I think the notion is fascinating. Both the science nerd and sci-fi nerd in me finds it pretty cool; though probably the sci-fi nerd in me moreso than the science nerd given that I'm hardly that literate in matters of physics, quantum or otherwise.

As far as implications on my faith might go, can't say there's really all that much. I've never really been one to use the cosmological argument or the like, since my faith in God isn't particularly rooted in rational philosophy--that is, I don't generally involve myself in arguments attempting to prove the existence of the Divine since I don't believe God's existence can be proven empirically or rationally.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[darknova]

I think the notion is fascinating. Both the science nerd and sci-fi nerd in me finds it pretty cool; though probably the sci-fi nerd in me moreso than the science nerd given that I'm hardly that literate in matters of physics, quantum or otherwise.

As far as implications on my faith might go, can't say there's really all that much. I've never really been one to use the cosmological argument or the like, since my faith in God isn't particularly rooted in rational philosophy--that is, I don't generally involve myself in arguments attempting to prove the existence of the Divine since I don't believe God's existence can be proven empirically or rationally.

-CryptoLutheran

Why do you believe in the Christian God then?