The Multiverse

[A_Seagull]

In the multiverse, it's said all things are possible. So we can have time running backwards, dark energy accelerating the contraction of the universe, the speed of light isn't a constant, the existence of God, no laws of science to help predict, increasing entropy, etc.

The multiverse is currently just a concept, but what a concept! Have you ever given thought to it? What say you to this?

PhilX

You need a reference if you want your 'all things are possible' to be taken seriously. As far as I know , no one of any stature has made any such claim. And if they had, I would certainly say it was complete nonsense.

Even if a multiverse does exist, it is way beyond any sensible reckoning to claim that 'all things are possible'.

[Sciency]

The multiverse theory does not state that everything is possible, it states that every mathimatical logical possibility does exist.

After a long enough time and considerable complaints from intelligent people within their own ranks, Big Bang cosmologists actually realized that their theory made no sense. Physical singularities do not exist in the real world. (Singularities are mathematical concepts.)

They also figured out that if something kind of like a singularity, a tiny little lump of mass-energy smaller than a proton actually existed, it would be absolutely stable. The near-infinitely massive micro-pea would have wrapped itself in space, akin to a black hole, except worse. It could not have exploded on its own.

Realizing that the Big Bang notion was about 2% theory and 98% dogma, yet needing to protect professorships gleaned by promoting such nonsense, these geniuses did what dogmatists of all stripes do-- they "explained" their nonsense by inventing another theory, The Multiverse, then waving their hands and claiming that somehow their made-up multiverse, which is conveniently infinite in extent, can do whatever it wants.

They learned this bullshit from the Catholic Church. The Multiverse is the scientist-priest's version of an omnipotent God, and is equally absurd.

Yes, sure. Because those who denie the multiverse theory have such enlightning theories that explain our universe. Oh, they don't and every attempt to disprove the theory of a multiverse failed up to this point.
But what can I say, I can only refer to Clarke's first law:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that ... something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

I am refering to David Gross and the collegues who are too old to accept any new theory that is not made by themselves. But that happened even to Albert Einstein, it's the ignorance that developes with age. I am sorry for people who are so close-minded in the way they think. If everyone was like that, we would still be out there fighting each other with stick and stones.

Only time will tell, but if there is only one universe, there will never be a way to explain the origin of our universe, because it would always create paradox. No matter how much you learn about the laws of nature, you will never find out what set those laws and natural constants. Only a theory of infinity would explain the phenomen, because it basicly states that everything that can exist does exist, because reality cannot be limited. This is a pure philosophical approach to explain it, but even then you and your theory of one universe fails miserably to explain anything. Infact, your theory of one universe is such a ridicilous concept that it doesn't even make sense on it's one, without the existence of any natural laws. The pure claim that there is only one universe is logically inconstistent.

If you ever find proof that there might be something that is capable of limiting reality and existence in a way it did, I am looking forward to the evidence you can provide, because to me it sounds like god.

[Wyman]

they don't and every attempt to disprove the theory of a multiverse failed up to this point.

Scientific theories ought to be based on evidence and verifiable/falsifiable by evidence. What evidence would you accept to either verify or falsify the multiverse theory? And what existing evidence supports it?

I can say that unicorns fly out of my ass when no one is looking. You can't disprove it. That doesn't make it a good scientific theory.

[Greylorn Ell]

The multiverse theory does not state that everything is possible, it states that every mathimatical logical possibility does exist.

After a long enough time and considerable complaints from intelligent people within their own ranks, Big Bang cosmologists actually realized that their theory made no sense. Physical singularities do not exist in the real world. (Singularities are mathematical concepts.)

They also figured out that if something kind of like a singularity, a tiny little lump of mass-energy smaller than a proton actually existed, it would be absolutely stable. The near-infinitely massive micro-pea would have wrapped itself in space, akin to a black hole, except worse. It could not have exploded on its own.

Realizing that the Big Bang notion was about 2% theory and 98% dogma, yet needing to protect professorships gleaned by promoting such nonsense, these geniuses did what dogmatists of all stripes do-- they "explained" their nonsense by inventing another theory, The Multiverse, then waving their hands and claiming that somehow their made-up multiverse, which is conveniently infinite in extent, can do whatever it wants.

They learned this bullshit from the Catholic Church. The Multiverse is the scientist-priest's version of an omnipotent God, and is equally absurd.

Yes, sure. Because those who denie the multiverse theory have such enlightning theories that explain our universe. Oh, they don't and every attempt to disprove the theory of a multiverse failed up to this point.
But what can I say, I can only refer to Clarke's first law:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that ... something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

I am refering to David Gross and the collegues who are too old to accept any new theory that is not made by themselves. But that happened even to Albert Einstein, it's the ignorance that developes with age. I am sorry for people who are so close-minded in the way they think. If everyone was like that, we would still be out there fighting each other with stick and stones.

Only time will tell, but if there is only one universe, there will never be a way to explain the origin of our universe, because it would always create paradox. No matter how much you learn about the laws of nature, you will never find out what set those laws and natural constants. Only a theory of infinity would explain the phenomen, because it basicly states that everything that can exist does exist, because reality cannot be limited. This is a pure philosophical approach to explain it, but even then you and your theory of one universe fails miserably to explain anything. Infact, your theory of one universe is such a ridicilous concept that it doesn't even make sense on it's one, without the existence of any natural laws. The pure claim that there is only one universe is logically inconstistent.

If you ever find proof that there might be something that is capable of limiting reality and existence in a way it did, I am looking forward to the evidence you can provide, because to me it sounds like god.

Learn to spell, or acquire a modicum of intelligence high enough to pay attention to the squiggly red lines beneath your chosen words. Then come back. Else, shut up.

Life is too short to deal with pinheads who cannot attend to the fundamentals of language, even with assistance.

[Sciency]

Scientific theories ought to be based on evidence and verifiable/falsifiable by evidence. What evidence would you accept to either verify or falsify the multiverse theory? And what existing evidence supports it?

I can say that unicorns fly out of my ass when no one is looking. You can't disprove it. That doesn't make it a good scientific theory.

Well, the difference between a multiverse and a unicorn flying out of your ass is, that the multiverse actually is a possible explanation for the natural laws and the state of our universe.
Sure there is no evidence for a multiverse, but there is no evidence for a single universe. Infact, like I said, the multiverse is at the moment the most consistent theory that mankind can offer.

If you have a better one, go on and tell me.

Besides, the theory of one universe is almost as theoretical as the theory of god. It's not even a theory, it's just an assumption. Worse even that it offers no explanation for the fundamental questions of reality:
If our universe is all reality and existence is made of, what did decide how our universe should look like? It's a philosophical question. Furthermore, how can reality be limited in any way? In my opinion people who claim that our universe is the only one, are as ignorant as people who claim that earth is the only planet in the universe.
The natural laws could've been made in any other way. Actually, there are as much as infinite possiblities of natural laws. You really think that our is the only one? Who or what did decide and how did it manage to do that?

It's natural to assume that reality is everything, because it seems that reality cannot be limited. It is everything that exists and if our universe is the only thing in reality, then there are infinite realities that do not exists.
You will never find an answere to the problem of the origin of the laws of nature, because no matter what you assume, it's always the laws of nature themselves you are talking about. If our universe is the only one, it shouldn't even exist in the first place.

If you assume that there was a certain point in which our universe came to existence, in which reality came into existence, what did trigger it? If it existed for infinity, you automatically have to assume that our universe loops, and that has sadly been disproven already.
If there is no multiverse and no origin of our universe, our universe would've been gone for an infinite amount of time if it wasn't looping. Your theory of one universe is not only inconsistent in it's logical construction, but there is also no evidence whatsoever that even remotely supports that theory.

You can say that our universe is the only one that exists. I can't disprove it (yet). That doesn't make it a good scientific theory.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Sciency said:

"In my opinion people who claim that our universe is the only one, are as ignorant as people who claim that earth is the only planet in the universe."

This pertains:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/sc ... anets&_r=0

PhilX

[Sciency]

Sciency said:

"In my opinion people who claim that our universe is the only one, are as ignorant as people who claim that earth is the only planet in the universe."

This pertains:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/sc ... anets&_r=0

PhilX

Am I missing the point here?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Sciency said:

"In my opinion people who claim that our universe is the only one, are as ignorant as people who claim that earth is the only planet in the universe."

This pertains:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/sc ... anets&_r=0

PhilX

Am I missing the point here?

This backs up what you're saying. To summarize, the article says that based on Kepler and calculations, there are about four billion earthlike planets in our Milky Way galaxy.

PhilX

[Wyman]

Sciency:

there is no evidence for a multiverse

there is no evidence for a single universe

Good start. But you show some emotion in then stating:

In my opinion people who claim that our universe is the only one, are as ignorant as people who claim that earth is the only planet in the universe.

Aren't they just as ignorant as those who claim there is an infinite number of universes? i.e. the multiverse - since there is no evidence for either? I guess you would say no, because:

multiverse is at the moment the most consistent theory

But being a little or a lot consistent is like being a little or a lot pregnant. A theory is consistent or not. Being inconsistent means producing a contradiction. A contradiction in a theory results in a reductio ad absurdum, proving that the theory, as it stands, is false.

If you have a better one, go on and tell me.

No, I don't. But I have one that's just as good - it flew out of my ass while no one was looking.

Your theory of one universe

It's not my theory. If neither theory is based on any evidence, as you stated, then why would I subscribe to either?

[Sciency]

Good start. But you show some emotion in then stating:

Aren't they just as ignorant as those who claim there is an infinite number of universes? i.e. the multiverse - since there is no evidence for either? I guess you would say no, because:

But being a little or a lot consistent is like being a little or a lot pregnant. A theory is consistent or not. Being inconsistent means producing a contradiction. A contradiction in a theory results in a reductio ad absurdum, proving that the theory, as it stands, is false.

No, I don't. But I have one that's just as good - it flew out of my ass while no one was looking.

It's not my theory. If neither theory is based on any evidence, as you stated, then why would I subscribe to either?

You wonder that I show emotion? It's the fundemetnal question of existence, if you don't feel any emotion when dealing with it, I don't think you are even capable of understand the significance of it.

I left the field of theoretical and practical physics when I defined people as ignorant. I entered, announced, philosophy (metaphysics). And I asked alot of question, that any logical being should be able to answere, atleast for himself. You avoided them completly, even though they are questions that you cannot ignore if you want to even attempt to understand reality. It has nothing to do with maths, natural laws of theoretical physics. The questions contains and provoces pure logic. You don't need to know about how the universe looks or what it is made of, the only thing you need to answere these questions is reason.

And the multiverse theory is absolutly consistent. There isn't the slightley inconstistency, unlike in the logical flaws of a universe, which is due to human understand simply impossible and in my opinion ridicilous and outdated. The multiverse lacks evidence, which may be provided sooner or later, like Einsteins theory of relativity, like Newtons laws of gravity. All those theories and so much more, lacked evidence when born. Luckily, the majority of scientists followed most of these theories and seeked answeres.


By the way, a scientist that is not emotional about what he is doing, is no scientist at all.

Like I said, if you believe in one universe, what did limit reality? Do you believe in god? The assumption that we are alone is equal to the assumption that we were created intentionally, or that the universe was created intentionally, because it is the only one and it has one of infinite possible forms. Quantum physics is the best example. You think our universe is the only one, so whatever happenes on quantum level happenes only one time. How?
You are stating something impossible.

[Wyman]

You're not even smart enough to realize that I never took a position on whether there is one universe or not. With that, good bye.

[Greylorn Ell]

Good start. But you show some emotion in then stating:

Aren't they just as ignorant as those who claim there is an infinite number of universes? i.e. the multiverse - since there is no evidence for either? I guess you would say no, because:

But being a little or a lot consistent is like being a little or a lot pregnant. A theory is consistent or not. Being inconsistent means producing a contradiction. A contradiction in a theory results in a reductio ad absurdum, proving that the theory, as it stands, is false.

No, I don't. But I have one that's just as good - it flew out of my ass while no one was looking.

It's not my theory. If neither theory is based on any evidence, as you stated, then why would I subscribe to either?

You wonder that I show emotion? It's the fundemetnal question of existence, if you don't feel any emotion when dealing with it, I don't think you are even capable of understand the significance of it.

I left the field of theoretical and practical physics when I defined people as ignorant. I entered, announced, philosophy (metaphysics). And I asked alot of question, that any logical being should be able to answere, atleast for himself. You avoided them completly, even though they are questions that you cannot ignore if you want to even attempt to understand reality. It has nothing to do with maths, natural laws of theoretical physics. The questions contains and provoces pure logic. You don't need to know about how the universe looks or what it is made of, the only thing you need to answere these questions is reason.

And the multiverse theory is absolutly consistent. There isn't the slightley inconstistency, unlike in the logical flaws of a universe, which is due to human understand simply impossible and in my opinion ridicilous and outdated. The multiverse lacks evidence, which may be provided sooner or later, like Einsteins theory of relativity, like Newtons laws of gravity. All those theories and so much more, lacked evidence when born. Luckily, the majority of scientists followed most of these theories and seeked answeres.


By the way, a scientist that is not emotional about what he is doing, is no scientist at all.

Like I said, if you believe in one universe, what did limit reality? Do you believe in god? The assumption that we are alone is equal to the assumption that we were created intentionally, or that the universe was created intentionally, because it is the only one and it has one of infinite possible forms. Quantum physics is the best example. You think our universe is the only one, so whatever happenes on quantum level happenes only one time. How?
You are stating something impossible.

Given that your attention span is too short to notice the spelling errors in your missives, and that your verbal dribblings show no evidence that you've ever opened an actual physics book, much less studied the subject, I'm guessing that you obtained your "multiverse" bullshit from documentary TV. I hope it did not interfere too much with your Disney Channel program viewing.

How old are you? 15, 16 maybe? I hope so, for it would tend to excuse your nonsense and offer some learning space for a future in which you do not adopt the cosmological-bullshit-of-the-day as truth. Good luck with that.