Problems with the Multiverse

Discussion in 'Why Science Is Wrong... About Almost Everything' started by nbtruthman, Apr 27, 2018.

  1. nbtruthman

    nbtruthman New

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    279


    Answer: they both require a great leap of faith - it's just that the theists are more honest about it.

    Moreover,

     
  2. Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 49, Issue 2, 1 April 2008, Pages 2.33–2.35: Opposing the multiverse by George Ellis. "Martin Gardner (2003) puts it this way: 'There is not the slightest shred of reliable evidence that there is any universe other than the one we are in. No multiverse theory has so far provided a prediction that can be tested. As far as we can tell, universes are not as plentiful as even two blackberries.'"
    http://astrogeo.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/2/2.33.full
    Multiverse Theories Fail to Explain Our Finely Tuned Universe.
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/08/multiverse-theories-fail-to-explain-our.html
    Guillermo Gonzalez on the Fine-tuning of the Universe to Support Life
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/04/video-guillermo-gonzalez-on-fine-tuning.html
    The multiverse argument for the existence of paranormal phenomena. Proposing a multiverse does not help the materialist cause, it hurts it. If there are enough universes to explain the existence of our "improbable" universe as the result of chance, then there should be enough universes for one to exist with a God, spirits, Sasquatch, intelligent designer(s), UFOs, alien abductions, psi, etc, etc.
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-multiverse-argument-for-existence.html

    What materialists don't tell you is that according to their multiverse theories, it is more likely that the universe is 6000 years old and everything outside our solar system is an illusion than it is that the universe is as vast and as old as it seems.

    Naturalism is an extraordinary claim. The laws of nature seem to be relatively simple mathematical relationships. How is it that just by chance simple natural laws working alone would include or produce all the factors necessary for life: the 20 or 30 cosmological fine tuning factors, at least 15 factors needed to produce habitable planets, at least 20 chemical factors needed for complex life? How is it possible that simple undesigned natural laws could produce the complex machinery of cells and the information needed for simple life and macroevolution? How could such finely-tuned complexity arise at every scale from the atomic to the cosmic from simple undesigned unguided natural laws? If you wanted to design such a complicated system from simple mathematical relationships, it would require a huge amount of intellectual effort. How could it happen just by chance? (A multiverse, for which there is no evidence, couldn't explain it.)
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2015/04/naturalism-is-extraordinary-claim.html

    Intelligent Design and Cosmology:
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/articl...by-subject.html#articles_by_subject_cosmology

    More on intelligent design here:
    http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/p/articles-and-links-arranged-by-subject.html#articles_by_subject_id
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2018
  3. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,114
    Peter Woit of Columbia University is very critical of the multiverse:

    http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/

    However, he never seems to want to think a little further. To me, the best book to give a glimpse of the scale of the potential rot in physics may be

    https://www.amazon.com/Bankrupting-Physics-Scientists-Gambling-Credibility/dp/1137278234

    Although he is a school teacher, he clearly has a very good grasp of a lot of high energy physics - theoretical and experimental. Be warned - his style is a bit grating, with too much use of ad hominems, but he certainly lands a lot of blows on the subject.

    He would wind physics back to before the point when it was claimed that protons were composed of three quarks, which, if you remember can never be observed singly because of 'asymptotic confinement'!

    One of his points is that recently discovered particles, such as the Higgs, have exceedingly short lifetimes such as 10^(-25) sec, which is about the time it would take light to cross the radius of a proton! These are detected as their ultimate decay products - electrons and photons - and filtered from the debris of huge numbers of other collisions. He estimated that 10^12 collisions have to be filtered to detect one Higgs particle. This filtering task is so vast that it is performed by special hardware, because the raw data is too voluminous to be stored for later analysis!

    What could possibly go wrong?

    Although I have seen the number 10^12 quibbled over, the gist of this is clearly true, so I would write off all the very high energy accelerators as sheer folly. Note that if you go further back, particle tracks were recorded in bubble chambers or photographic plates, and thus presumably recorded genuine phenomena.

    All that is before you even consider the fanciful theoretical side of this mess.

    David
     
    nbtruthman, Wormwood and Jim_Smith like this.

Share This Page