What is the difference between belief in a multiverse and belief in God?

[lilithu]

There is a difference between scientists and their science. The science is astonishingly good, but as a rule scientists make lousy philosophers. They have their "cliks," prejudices and invested interests just like politicians and religious authorities.

And armchair philosophers make lousy scientists.

And are just as prejudiced.

So what is your point?

 

[rocketman]

Let me try this again: He is NOT saying, "Both views are equally invalid, and therefore if you like the multiverse theory you should be willing to consider the God theory as well."

I never suggested he did anything of the sort. Here is what he said:

"Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith. "

He is showing an equivalence between the two ideas in terms of degree of belief.

 

[Valjean]

OK, just for clarification, so we're all on the same page, this "multiverse" we're discussing is Everett's Manyworlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, no?

 

[lilithu]

I never suggested he did anything of the sort.

Not explicitly.

 

[rocketman]

Not explicitly.

Then you misunderstood me.

 

[lilithu]

Then you misunderstood me.

Ok. So then you agree that "God did it" can never be part of a scientific theory?

 

[rocketman]

Ok. So then you agree that "God did it" can never be part of a scientific theory?

I never suggested otherwise.

 

[lilithu]

I never suggested otherwise.

That's not exactly the same thing as saying that you agree.

 

[rocketman]

OK, just for clarification, so we're all on the same page, this "multiverse" we're discussing is Everett's Manyworlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, no?

It would not make any difference. MWI in particular has limited explanatory power in that it cannot account for our 'fine tuned' universe, which would not serve the purposes of those proponents like Dawkins for example. All multiverse theories lack falsifiable testability, and all indirect detection tests and proposals are not completely falsifiable in and of themselves, even the quantum interference ones. When respectable scientists criticise 'multiverse' theory they generally mean all of the many-universe theories.

 

[rocketman]

That's not exactly the same thing as saying that you agree.

Good grief. "I agree". Not that I ever suggested otherwise......... I also agree with Davies that the leaps of faith on both sides are comparable.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I also agree with Davies that the leaps of faith on both sides are comparable.

But the frequency of the leaps of faith is very one-sided. I have met few physicists who "know in their hearts" that the postulates of quantum mechanics are true. I have met none who would proudly assert that "nothing could ever change my mind" about supersymmetry. I've also heard few sermons where the preacher said "Of course this remains very speculative..." or "We simply don't know..."

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Spinkster, thanks for the info, though the program you cite deliberately does not introduce a complete stop function for catastrophic IC events

What is "a complete stop function for catastrophic IC events" and why is it relevant?

But in any case, I'm sure you got my original point that good math does not guarantee prior physical existence of something.

Agreed!

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Spinks, I strongly think that the criticisms are both unfounded and not quite as widespread as you suggest. When he uses the term 'God' he is talking more of unexplained first causes rather than anything we know as religious. He has explained this in the past but people seem to have selective hearing. If anything he is courteous to everbody's sensibilities. Like this gentle approach (emphaisis mine): "Einstein raised this possibility when he said, in his typical poetic manner, that what really interested him was whether “God had any choice in the creation of the world.” To express this sentiment more neutrally, Einstein was asking whether the universe could have been otherwise". Those are not the words of one who is trying to make a positive claim about religion; the way some complain about him you'd think he was a preacher. Any cosmologist considering the range of possibilities of first causes is not wrong to do so, and those who criticise them for doing so are very shallow in my opinion. It is part of the job of well known cosmologists to be honest about the state of cosmology and it's limits. Davies does it rather well. It is also the job of a popular cosmology commentator to relay the human experience behind the scenes, including the leaps of faith involved. Davies does this particulary well and with bravery.

I agree with most of what you said. I wasn't saying there existed widespread criticism of Davies per se, but from my experience I think most physicists would regard the invokations of God and the comparisons between religion and science as confusing, rather than clarifying, the nature of scientific inquiry to the public. Yes physicists make assumptions and speculations just like religions, but there is a difference between assuming things self-consciously vs. self-confidently. I could be wrong, though.

Multiverse theory offers no falsifiable test whatsoever. Everyone accepts that one day it may offer some testable indirect consequences, but even then the problem of showing beyond doubt that the consequences were not a natural effect native to this universe may lead back to square one. That is, at this stage, it's impossible to imagine how even an indirect consequence would itself be truly falsifiable. For now multiverse theory is a completely mental construct.

Agreed.

At this point in time, to choose it over the god idea is no nobel thing.

Absolutely. But for the most part, what I observe is people choosing the god idea over all of cosmology (even the not-so-speculative stuff). That is no noble thing, either. I don't think it's even a choice, since there is no coherent "god idea" (scientifically speaking) that I am aware of.

When Dawkins promotes multiverse theory as his prefered explanation for the existence of our universe he does so with no direct scientific evidence whatsoever.

I've read two of his books, and I have not noticed him promoting multiverse theory as certain truth, the way God is promoted by the theists he criticizes. Can you quote, or paraphrase the offending passages?

 

[rocketman]

But the frequency of the leaps of faith is very one-sided.

That is both outside the scope of this thread and the reason why this type of thread is so rare, but I agree. I would add however that science often receives physical confirmation for it's leaps of faith and therefore collectively is less likely to have them 'hanging around', whereas theism is largely looking beyond pyhsical confirmation for it's leaps of faith.

What is "a complete stop function for catastrophic IC events" and why is it relevant?

The program allows a non-functional generation to reproduce. But it does not matter, as I'm getting off track.

I wasn't saying there existed widespread criticism of Davies per se, but from my experience I think most physicists would regard the invokations of God and the comparisons between religion and science as confusing, rather than clarifying, the nature of scientific inquiry to the public.

Point taken, and I agree things could get confusing, but, as you say: "what I observe is people choosing the god idea over all of cosmology" and to be honest I think his method and language is far more relavant to the public. After all, the job of science is not to promote belief in God, but nor is it to disuade people from believing in him.... surely? .... Davies uses words that sound religious but then so did Einstein. What's the alternative? I am reminded of a quote by Gene Roddenberry: "He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear. It's a manifestation of the greatness of God, or whatever it is, gave us." I'm sure Davies wouldn't say 'whatever it is', it's just not part of the polite nature of the man. I think people are generally smart enough to know that science doesn't have an explanation for ultimate causes, a concept that many use the term 'God' for anyway. If I may expand on Roddenberry's comment while it's there to be read, I think some variation of views and language, especially of these nebulous untestable concepts, can only be exciting!

I've read two of his books, and I have not noticed him promoting multiverse theory as certain truth, the way God is promoted by the theists he criticizes.

I did not say 'as certain truth' but rather 'prefered explanation'. You even quoted me as such. Nevermind. Getting back to the OP, we are asked:

"...aren't we just choosing one unknown over the other, based on our own personal bias?..."

So I have been travelling along from the beginning of this thread thinking that we are all talking about God and multiverses as two unknowns, rather than as certain truths. By 'certain truth' I mean something that we can prove physically. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Luminous]

Universal laws are known, gods are by and large unknown.

:no:


universal laws are observed. Gods are by and large thought about.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That is both outside the scope of this thread and the reason why this type of thread is so rare, but I agree. I would add however that science often receives physical confirmation for it's leaps of faith and therefore collectively is less likely to have them 'hanging around', whereas theism is largely looking beyond pyhsical confirmation for it's leaps of faith.

Good point. But does it really make sense to equate the "leaps of faith" in science and religion? Is God normally understood by those who take a "leap of faith" in him as a rigorously-posed hypothesis whose validity is currently unknown until more evidence comes in?

The program allows a non-functional generation to reproduce. But it does not matter, as I'm getting off track.

The function is not needed to reproduce. It merely enables greater reproduction. Are you suggesting the results of the experiments were intelligently designed?

Point taken, and I agree things could get confusing, but, as you say: "what I observe is people choosing the god idea over all of cosmology" and to be honest I think his method and language is far more relavant to the public. After all, the job of science is not to promote belief in God, but nor is it to disuade people from believing in him.... surely?

Of course.

.... Davies uses words that sound religious but then so did Einstein. What's the alternative?

It's not so much their use, but their overuse, or misuse, that strikes me. To my mind, these are better alternatives... YouTube - Carl Sagan - Pale Blue Dot YouTube - Carl Sagan - Cosmos Intro YouTube - Carl Sagan 4th Dimension Explanation YouTube - Growing up in the Universe - Episode 1 (1 of 6) YouTube - Growing up in the Universe - Episode 1 (2 of 6) YouTube - Arthur Clarke - Fractals - The Colors Of Infinity 1 of 6 (especially worth it to start watching at 4:45)

In fact every time I watch Carl Sagan's intro to Cosmos, or his explanation of the "pale blue dot", I get that feeling one gets, when you know you better not say anything or your voice might catch.

I am reminded of a quote by Gene Roddenberry: "He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear. It's a manifestation of the greatness of God, or whatever it is, gave us." I'm sure Davies wouldn't say 'whatever it is', it's just not part of the polite nature of the man. I think people are generally smart enough to know that science doesn't have an explanation for ultimate causes, a concept that many use the term 'God' for anyway.

They're smart enough to understand it if you make it clear. There's a reason so many people have the misconception that Einstein believed in God, but so few have the misconception that Sagan did. I.m.o. modern physics and cosmology requires new words and turns of phrase to describe it. Invoking God, without carefully explaining that you don't mean it in the ordinary sense at all, is like invoking Thor to explain lightning, to a society of Thor worshippers.

If I may expand on Roddenberry's comment while it's there to be read, I think some variation of views and language, especially of these nebulous untestable concepts, can only be exciting!

Agreed!

I did not say 'as certain truth' but rather 'prefered explanation'. You even quoted me as such.

I didn't mean to imply you had said that; I was merely pointing out the difference between having a preferred explanation and promoting something as certain truth. Dawkins has a preferred explanation about the origins of the universe, and he criticizes those who promote non-explanations as certain truth. I.m.o. the only thing extraordinary about this is that his criticism applies to so many people.

So I have been travelling along from the beginning of this thread thinking that we are all talking about God and multiverses as two unknowns, rather than as certain truths. By 'certain truth' I mean something that we can prove physically. I hope that makes sense.

I think so. Good discussion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Ooh! I should have mentioned this one as well: YouTube - Carl Sagan on "God" and "gods"

 

[rojse]

My position is fine thank you, although I could have used a better word than crazy; at the time I was thinking crazy as in 'amazing' crazy (too much time hanging around my nephews:areyoucra). The concepts I listed all contain (in part or in whole) amazing ideas of perfect mathematical construction; although which in no way guarantees their prior physical reality.

True, but this mathematical construction helps us know where to look. The Large Hadron Collider, for example, was a multi-billion dollar particle collider was built on the basis of promising mathematical and physics work, to prove the existence of an elusive particle.

My point that you quote from is simply this: good math does not guarantee hard physical evidence. Some people cling to the math and that gives them comfort, but it does not make an idea true in reality. Of-course it does give something to pursue,

True.

although not in an empirical sense, for that would require a falsifiable hypothesis.

False. The hypothesis is falsifiable. If I tell you that when two particles are collided, the maths says that I should get X and Y, and that we can find X and Y by using Z, not finding X or Y proves my hypothesis wrong.

Multiverse theory makes very specific claims, for which there is zero direct evidence. And my credentials are quite sufficient, thank you for asking; not that I would ever ask for yours.

I have no credentials, either.

However, in the context of your refutation of these concepts without any attempt to present an argument, I though that you might have some reason to say this.

And the mutliuniverse hypothesis is not a mathematical hypothesis. It is an attempt to answer the anthropic principle - why are humans alive, and why does the universe seem to suit us and life?

 

[rocketman]

True, but this mathematical construction helps us know where to look. The Large Hadron Collider, for example, was a multi-billion dollar particle collider was built on the basis of promising mathematical and physics work, to prove the existence of an elusive particle.

Lol, I can't help throwing in a quote from Peter Woit's blog:

"Perhaps the LHC will revive the subject of particle theory, by producing a wormhole that will take the world back to its other end, opened up in 1985 by a DeLorean in the movie, from there setting us off into a more promising part of the multiverse."

He is a mathematician and theoretical physicist who wrote a scathing book on String Theory (and Multiverses). May I suggest you read it?

False. The hypothesis is falsifiable. If I tell you that when two particles are collided, the maths says that I should get X and Y, and that we can find X and Y by using Z, not finding X or Y proves my hypothesis wrong.

What the...? I said you cannot pursue multiverses in an empirical sense, yet.

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: \-i-kəl\
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic \-ik\
Function: adjective
Date: 1569
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>

I have no credentials, either.

Hey, speak for yourself.

However, in the context of your refutation of these concepts without any attempt to present an argument, I though that you might have some reason to say this.

You've lost me. What concepts? I'm just pointing out that we don't and currently cannot know if multiverses exist.

And the mutliuniverse hypothesis is not a mathematical hypothesis. It is an attempt to answer the anthropic principle - why are humans alive, and why does the universe seem to suit us and life?

It is both my friend.

 

[rocketman]

Good point. But does it really make sense to equate the "leaps of faith" in science and religion?

Yes I think it does in extremely rare situations like this one where the decision is made to adopt an idea for which there is zero physical evidence. We all seem to have the ability to make leaps of faith, and I think clearly we do so out of bias, not that doing so is wrong or unwarrranted.

Is God normally understood by those who take a "leap of faith" in him as a rigorously-posed hypothesis whose validity is currently unknown until more evidence comes in?

Well actually yes for those who are looking for answers, then take a leap of faith, and then find themselves more properly convinced by miracles later on. (I'm not offering evidence of miracles and I'm not asking for evidence of multiverses, but you see my point) I've actually always thought of this process as having a similarity between science and religion, so funny you should ask me then.

YouTube - Arthur Clarke - Fractals - The Colors Of Infinity 1 of 6 (especially worth it to start watching at 4:45)

Hey Spinks, are you trying to make me dizzy with those psychedelic patterns?!! Wheeeeeeeeee........hehe.

In fact every time I watch Carl Sagan's intro to Cosmos, or his explanation of the "pale blue dot", I get that feeling one gets, when you know you better not say anything or your voice might catch.

Yeah, he was a great communicator, and a great man of peace, we could use another Sagan. But he was never afraid to drop in an atheist comment or two when it suited him. I'm not sure he is a good standard of neutrality. I suppose if Davies has swung too far one way then I'm happy for him to he serve as a counterwieght for those who tend to swing the other.

I didn't mean to imply you had said that; I was merely pointing out the difference between having a preferred explanation and promoting something as certain truth. Dawkins has a preferred explanation about the origins of the universe, and he criticizes those who promote non-explanations as certain truth. I.m.o. the only thing extraordinary about this is that his criticism applies to so many people.

Dawkins demands falsifiability of the God-idea, and yet his touted explanation is totally unfalsifiable. If it's not extraordinary it's certainly very cheeky!

Imho: While certain ideas of origins may fall in and out of favor with certain atheistic scientists, an underlying idea seems to never go away: that is, the dogmatic belief that the universe is of natural origin and no other. This is often infered or implied in the popular science/atheist literature as a kind of 'certain' scientific truth, despite it not actually being so. Contrary to what many think, it is unscientific. Science is only tasked with explaining the natural, not declaring the extent of what is natural when it cannot see that far. The industry of atheists who are also scientists who are also popular authors has become quite sizeable and rather full of claims that push in that direction. I'm all for speculation and new ideas, but when a scientist deliberately dismisses the idea of non-natural origins using an evidence-free concept, what does that tell us? It tells me that he sees exclusively natural origins as 'certain truth', so much so that supporting claims do not require evidence. It's one thing to believe in evidence-free multiverses, but quite another to bash evidence-free theists around the head with it as Dawkins does.

(Lol, I have this funny image in my head of two blind guys having a punch up while trying to convince each other that they can see.) :fight:

And that's all just my opinion, and I know some will have a problem with it.

I think so. Good discussion.

Indeed. Any of your points I did not respond to I am generally in agreement with. Always good to see you in action Mr S.