1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Absolute proof against the multiverse

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by leroy, Aug 26, 2018.

  1. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    4,584
    Ratings:
    +407
    Religion:
    christian
    Some atheists/naturalists use the multiverse hypothesis to explain the fine tuning of the universe. Even though atheist tend to admit that the multiverse hypothesis is not 100% satisfactory they argue that it is a better explanation than design.

    In this post I will try to provide evidence that disproves the multiverse hypothesis.

    Some points for clarifying:

    A) I won't refute the idea that there is a multiverse, I will refute the idea that the multiverse hypothesis explains the fine tuning of the universe.

    B) I am talking about type 2 multiverses

    : arguments against the multiverse hypothesis:

    1 there is no evidence that there are other universes

    2 the hypothesis is completely ad hoc. one can use the multiverse hypothesis to explain away any inconfortable evidence.
    For example a creationist can argue that in some universes radioactive elements decayed faster in the last 6,000 years .allowing for a young earth that looks old. We happen to live in such universe.

    3 current multiverse models (eternal inflation, string theory etc) even if true would require fine tuning so they wouldn't solve the fine tuning problem. For example eternal inflation requieres an even lower entropy.

    4 ironically the multiverse hypothesis entails that some universes where created by an inteligent designer. If the multiverse hypothesis is true and if there are potentially infinite some of these universes would be universes created by intelligent designers.
    Some universes would produce very intelligent beings who would create universes (ether actual universes or simulations) so even if we grant that there is a multiverse we might live in a designed universe. A single intelligent civilization can create millions of artificial universes so these artifitial universes would probably be more abundant than "natural universes" so the default hypothesis should be that we live in an artificial universe.

    ....
    This are good arguments against the multiverses hypothesis but none of these objection is devastating.
    .….

    Here is a devastating objection:

    5 Boltzmann's brain paradox: we live in a very big universe with many stars and galaxies, a simple universe as big as our solar system would require less fine tuning; and therefore small universes would be vastly more abundant Roger Penrose calculated that there would be 10^630 simple universes, for every big universe like ours. Given that we obverve a big universe we are clearly not a random member of the multiverse.

    But it gets more interesting, in the set of
    10^630 universes there would be millions of universes in which observers are hallucinating or dreaming that they live in a big complex universe with many galaxies and stars. It is statistically vastly more likely that you live in a simple universe with a single star and a single planet, that you live inside this planet in a psychiatric hospital and that you created your own reality in your mind in which you think (hallucinate) that there are many galaxies and many stars. (This forum, your memories, your friends etc. Would also be part of this hallucination.)

    Statistically speaking this would be the best and more probable explanation for why you observe many stars and galaxies

    It gets worst, as Boltzmann noted, you don't even need a star nor a planet nor a physical body to make this observation; a single brain that comes in to existence as a consequence of a random fluctuation can appear with the illusion of having a memory a phisical body, an account in this forum who also imagines itselve in a big universe. These brains are Boltzmann brains.

    This is known as the Boltzmann brain paradox. If we grant that there is a multiverse and that our universe is just a random member of such multiverse it follows that you are a Boltzmann brain.

    this is an absurd conclusion because under this conclusion all the evidence for a multiverse that might excist would also be an illusion. We can drop the multiverse hypothesis one the bases of Reductio ad absurdum this logical principle says that any model that leads to a logical contradiction most be dropped .

    This objection completely devastates the multiverse hypothesis
    .....

    Unless and until an atheist can provide a devastating objection against intelligent design we are justified in affirming that design is a better explanation than the multiverse hypothesis.

     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Frog

    Frog Cult of Kek.

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2018
    Messages:
    331
    Ratings:
    +53
    Religion:
    Occult philosopher
    Every number can be reduced universally to 1. The only other option would be 0 but.... Maybe 0 is God. Maybe nothing exists outside our universe?
     
    #2 Frog, Aug 26, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2018
  3. Jumi

    Jumi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2014
    Messages:
    9,881
    Ratings:
    +5,459
    Religion:
    Secular theist (none)
    Where is the fine tuning of the universe? It looks almost empty.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  4. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    13,090
    Ratings:
    +11,166
    Religion:
    Humanist
    Do you know what a hypothesis is? It is an unproven explanation of a phenomena, so atheists / naturalists consider the possibility of a multiverse but it is far, far from proven.
    To then throw Intelligent Design into the same sentence is crazy, ID has been thoroughly debunked as evolution is proven, it is a theory.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  5. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    38,083
    Ratings:
    +34,076
    Religion:
    None
    1/ actually there is evidence that there might be other universes. In fact here is more evidence for multiple universes than there is for a single universe. See the bruising on the CMB and the corresponding volumes of our universe moving contrary to general universal expansion.

    2/ what?

    3/ no they wouldn't require any fine tuning and there is no evidence of fine-tuning, but much evidence of randomness. See the sloan digital sky survey.

    4/ no they dont, please provide evidence for your claim

    5/ total misunderstanding of penrose and more relevantly, lee smolin et al.

    Until creationist can comprehend cosmology without making a total hash of it as you have done then cosmologists (not atheists) have nothing to worry about with the creationist claim "d'oh i dont understand so god poofed the universe out of nothing using god magic"
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    13,280
    Ratings:
    +12,960
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    There seems to be a bit a non sequitur at the end of this. Why on earth would ID be an alternative to the multiverse hypothesis?

    There are alternatives to the multiverse hypothesis, notably the hypothesis that there is only one universe, so far as we can tell. This "one universe" hypothesis certainly does not entail ID.

    In fact it is a bit pointless discussing ID in the same content as any scientific hypothesis, since it is well established* that ID is not a scientific idea.

    *cf Kitzmiller trial for example
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    19,263
    Ratings:
    +9,819
    Religion:
    None
    "Absolute proof" was almost like, you know,
    a absolute giveaway. :D
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  8. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    17,547
    Ratings:
    +8,653
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    All of the above requires assumptions that are not based on the present knowledge of science, and from the perspective of a biased religious layman agenda. First, science does not prove things, and it falsifies hypothesis and theories. Claim of 'absolute proof' is a foolish canard beyond belief. Second, by far the majority of the scientists in the field of physics and cosmology do not share your layman view. Third, beyond the first few planc second of out universe no one theory of origins of our universe has been determined to the one accepted hypothesis to explain the origin of our universe. Fourth, the nature of the possible singularity and how it is formed is theoretical, and not determined by objective verifiable evidence. Fifth, there is absolutely no evidence for an absolute beginning of our universe. Sixth, no form of ID hypothesis is remotely proposed by legitimate science.

    . . . more to follow . . .
     
    #8 shunyadragon, Aug 26, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2018
    • Like Like x 1
  9. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    4,584
    Ratings:
    +407
    Religion:
    christian
    This thread direct critique for those who grant that the universe is finally tuned for the existence of life and that the multiverse hypothesis is a better explanation than design. If this doesn't represents you, then this is not for you.

    1 ok there are some bits of evidence for a multiverse, but is still a highly speculative hypothesis

    2 well the hypothesis is adhoc, anyone can use the multiverse hypothesis to explain away any hard question ......

    3 there is nothing controversial this statement, eternal inflation requires lower entropy, string theory exactly 11 dimensions, these are all layers of additional fine tuning. Feel free to provide a multiverse model that doesn't require extra fine tuning.

    4 if there are potentially infinite universes some of this universes would have very intelligent beings

    Some of them will create artifitial universes (ether real universes or simulations)

    A single civilization would create many artifitial universes

    Artifitial life permiting universes would be more common than natural ourring universes

    Therefore it would be more likely that we live in an artificial universe created by inteligent designers.

    Which if this claims do you find controversial?

    5 justify your asertion .


    ....
    Nobody is saying that you most conclude inteligent design, all you have to do is admit that multiverse hypothesis is a worst explanation than design .......you might have some other explanation
     
  10. leroy

    leroy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2018
    Messages:
    4,584
    Ratings:
    +407
    Religion:
    christian

    1 The multiverse hypothesis leads to a "reductio ad absurdum" due to the Boltzmann brain paradox

    2 if a hypothesis leads a redoctio ad absurdum then the hypothesis has been falsified

    3 therefore the multiverse hypothesis has been falsified as an explanation for the fine tuning of the universe

    4 nobody has falsified inteligent design

    5 therefore inteligent design is a better explanation for the fine tuning than multiverse hypothesis


    Which of this 5 points do you disagree with and why?
     
  11. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    17,547
    Ratings:
    +8,653
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    The problem remains fine tuning and the various ID hypothesis totally lack any falsifiable scientific basis.

    You need to reflect more the actual view of contemporary science to give a coherent and realistic dialogue, and avoid random layman assumptions based on a religious agenda. The layman's view is highly flawed concerning any of the different possible hypothesis proposed in real science.

    This is not the purpose nor the basis of the multiverse hypothesis.

    Non of the proposed hypothesis nor models of the origins of our universe require 'fine tuning.' The hypothesis of 'fine tuning' is not falsifiable using legitimate science.

    Some of the universes could [possibly] have very intelligent beings.

    All of the above. There is not a falsifiable hypothesis nor objective verifiable evidence for any of the above. Careful of 'arguing from ignorance' and requiring others to prove the 'negative,' which are fallacies, and simple atrocious logic.


    The present view of many if not most physicists and cosmologists is that the multiverse is the most likely scenario.

    Intelligent Design in any form is the least likely alternative based on science.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Cacotopia

    Cacotopia Let's go full Trottle

    Joined:
    May 12, 2018
    Messages:
    2,427
    Ratings:
    +1,381
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You lost me at fine tuning, since...no atheist I know including me, has ever said that?

    Also 99.9999999% of the universe can kill you.

    Also when you have only one example of life, life that "fine tuned" itself to live on this particular rock and no where else via evolution, that fine tuned theory isn't applicable no mo'.

    Let's take that a little further, even when you take species on one part of the planet and move them to another part of the planet, they either decimate the local population or get wiped out in short order.

    This fine tuned nonsense needs to go.
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Cacotopia

    Cacotopia Let's go full Trottle

    Joined:
    May 12, 2018
    Messages:
    2,427
    Ratings:
    +1,381
    Religion:
    Atheist
    I don't know how you kooks keep the faith in this intelligent design bobbledeegook when there are zero facts to support it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,532
    Ratings:
    +2,817
    I might say amen right here. Bad science and bad religion seem compatible. They both exist in a virtual reality with divergent explanations. They agree on the general idea they just disagree on the details is all. Sort of like Calvin vs Wesley in religion!
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  15. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    17,547
    Ratings:
    +8,653
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    The scientific hypothesis concerning the origins of the universe do not lead to reductio ad assurdum. Scientific hypothesis are not based on logical structured arguments. You grossly misusing science and logic. Butchery with a dull butter knife.
    The Boltzman brain paradox has absolutely nothing to do with the various hypothesis concerning the origins of our universe.

    I see no scientific references to justify your absurd argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity"). You need to refer to a legitimate science foundation for your argument and not a warped logic based on a layman's religious agenda.

    From:Reductio ad absurdum - Wikipedia
    In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; also argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument that attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.[1][2] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[2] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις 'demonstration to the impossible', 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.

    The multiverse hypothesis does not propose nor has anything to do with the none scientific 'fine tuning hypothesis.

    True, because it does not represent a falsifiable hypothesis. Again, please do not use the atrocious 'argument from ignorance' and demanding to prove the negative.

    All of the above. Intelligent Design in any form, nor 'fine tuning' are falsifiable scientific hypothesis.
     
    #15 shunyadragon, Aug 26, 2018
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. sayak83

    sayak83 Well-Known Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    9,730
    Ratings:
    +9,649
    Religion:
    Pluralist Hindu
    Multiverse is a prediction of the very successful inflationary universe theory. There will be significant constraints on the possible physics that can occur in any of these universes that stabilize out of the inflationary region. We don't know what they are and it will take significant research over a long time to find out. However those constraints are very likely to naturally eliminate things like Boltzman brain and non-uniform physics type of stuff. Scientists will find out what's what over time.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. Cacotopia

    Cacotopia Let's go full Trottle

    Joined:
    May 12, 2018
    Messages:
    2,427
    Ratings:
    +1,381
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Wait for it: "But evolution is only a theory" comment to happen.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Hubert Farnsworth

    Hubert Farnsworth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,844
    Ratings:
    +2,530
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    You don't understand the concept of proof.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    6,706
    Ratings:
    +4,620
    Religion:
    ?
    Good point, and agreed.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    38,083
    Ratings:
    +34,076
    Religion:
    None
    If you want to use guesswork and godmagic to claim the universe is whatever then yes its for me to refute.

    1. all hypothesis regarding the creation of the universe are speculative. Some are backed up by maths, some by physical evidence. None require godmagic

    2. Your evidence of this claim?

    3. First, prove eternal anything. Have you looked up the meaning of entropy? Superstring theory required 10 dimensions, M theory 11, bosonic strings theorys 26.
    maxresdefault.jpg

    Fine tuned? Chaos?

    seqF_037a_half.jpg

    A chaotic universe

    Feel free to provide evidence of fine tuning.

    4. You appear to be contradicting yourself, however possibly other universes exist. But justify your assertion regarding life creating universes.

    5. Lee Smolin's articles on arXiv

    The multiverse hypothesis has far more going for it than ID ever had, it has more going for it than some of the other hypothesis.
    The id idea has nothing going for it other than the imagination of a few scientifically lacking creationists and past its use by date many decades ago.
    All you have to do is be honest and admit the ID idea is just an excuse for people who cant cope with the fact no evidence of a designer is required or has been evidenced.
     
Loading...