Is it reasonable to believe in the Multiverse?

[historia]

Is it reasonable to believe in the Multiverse?

Note, the question here is not whether you think it is true that the Multiverse exists, but simply whether such a belief is reasonable or not.

[Jose Fly]

"X is just a belief and nothing more" is mutually exclusive with "X is based in mathematics".

This is patently false, there are many mathematical beliefs, for example Goldbach's conjecture or the twin prime conjecture - these are believed by many mathematicians to be true and they are based on mathematics.

Only if you want to define math itself as a "belief". Because if math is not a "belief", then "is based in math" is mutually exclusive with "is a belief and nothing more".

[Jose Fly]

Of course, why did you think otherwise?

Oh, then perhaps I've been mistaken. I took the creationists' posts in this thread as indicative that y'all thought otherwise.

But if your view is that the multiverse model is mathematically derived and rational, then we may be done here.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #49]

The problems stem from a combination of him mischaracterizing the multiverse as a "belief"

Does anyone have any evidence that there are other universes beyond this one? Has anyone observed other universes? Anyone?


The question has to be asked why did multiverse theory finally take off, because the multiverse theory has been around since the 60s or 70's I want to say. It is much older than string theory which was first developed from 1970 to the mid 1990's. It was the failure of string theory that revived the discredited multiverse theory of the 60s. The problem with string theory is that it had too many solutions it had too many universes that it could create instead of the one that we can observe.

So the multiverse theory is not some great mathematically derived theory that led to some great conclusions about reality. It comes from two bankrupt theories. Brian Greene who spent a lot of time promoting string Theory used the multiverse theory to save string theory from extinction. So in other words they use each other to make themselves relevant.

Brian Greene and others who were promoting string theory then started to promote the multiverse also.

being about gods, and being pantheistic, and making empty assertions about cosmology/theoretical physics all while providing zero evidence"

The evidence is in how it was "developed." There is no evidence of a multiverse at least for forty years there was no evidence of a multiverse. And it was not some observational evidence that popularized the multiverse it was String theories that need to stay relevant.

Then the question needs to be asked. Why did so many scientists hop on board this unobserved theory? The answer, they could not stomach the alternative. The multiverse theory was the only theory in town. The implication of no multiverse is a special creation. God.

So the multiverse theory is nothing more than man, making his own God, a multiverse, to create everything. That is pantheism.

[Inquirer]

"X is just a belief and nothing more" is mutually exclusive with "X is based in mathematics".

This is patently false, there are many mathematical beliefs, for example Goldbach's conjecture or the twin prime conjecture - these are believed by many mathematicians to be true and they are based on mathematics.

Only if you want to define math itself as a "belief". Because if math is not a "belief", then "is based in math" is mutually exclusive with "is a belief and nothing more".

That's not how I see it Jose. Regarding any proposition as true that is not proven true, is to believe the proposition, I don't know how to make this any easier to understand.

[Jose Fly]

That's not how I see it Jose. Regarding any proposition as true that is not proven true, is to believe the proposition, I don't know how to make this any easier to understand.

So in your world, there are only two categories: "proven true" and "nothing more than belief".

Hopefully you appreciate how others are not limited to such binary, black/white thinking.

[Clownboat]

Does anyone have any evidence that there are other universes beyond this one? Has anyone observed other universes? Anyone?

Not that I know of. You should check the internet.

Brian Greene and others who were promoting string theory then started to promote the multiverse also.

Wonderful.

The evidence is in how it was "developed." There is no evidence of a multiverse at least for forty years there was no evidence of a multiverse. And it was not some observational evidence that popularized the multiverse it was String theories that need to stay relevant.

Ok.

Then the question needs to be asked. Why did so many scientists hop on board this unobserved theory? The answer, they could not stomach the alternative. The multiverse theory was the only theory in town. The implication of no multiverse is a special creation. God.

Hold on a minute, how on earth did you go from scientists hopping on board an unobserved theory to pixie farts created the universe? Please make the connection. Why are pixie farts the only alternative? Why not an advanced race of aliens, or we are living in a simulation or gods of some sort etc...? How is it that you can only see pixie farts as universe creators while there could be other explanations? Where does this obsession with pixie farts come from anyway? Have they threatened you if you don't believe in them? Why this need for pixies, I don't get it?

(For anyone interested, substitute pixie farts for a god of your chosing and the words maintian their meaning).

So the multiverse theory is nothing more than man, making his own God, a multiverse, to create everything. That is pantheism.

And if you don't accept the multiverse, you will burn in hell for eternity. The multiverse also doesn't approve of homosexuals and wants us to stone them. Silly right? The connection you hoped to make just isnt there and I fear you have upset the obviously gasey pixies.

TLDR: We don't know how our universe came to be. Claiming pixie farts are the only possibility is dishonest. 'I don't know' is the only honest answer currently.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #66]

Hold on a minute, how on earth did you go from scientists hopping on board an unobserved theory to pixie farts created the universe?

A poem.

Pixie Farts create Pixel parts
Integrity! Have One For Me!
Materialist
The Human Being
Mischief making

Pure soul "Holy Koolaid!"

Inner work "Pixie Farts"
deus ex machina
Apotheosis

Source Codes

Adjustment Intelligent

Innermost

The Third

Eye Rainstorm

Christian mythology re Satan - It is a Product of Fragmentation

Gödel's incompleteness theorems - Programmed to believe the interface

Pixie Farts The Human Being
Swallowed - hook, bait and line
"Partial free will is a thing".
Empower The Inner Empire

Standstill Contemplate
Universe of Wholeness
[The bits I like will suffice.]
The word association field - "Science of Consciousness"
Ever - always - think twice...

[historia]

Is it reasonable to believe in the Multiverse?

Note, the question here is not whether you think it is true that the Multiverse exists, but simply whether such a belief is reasonable or not.

The question isn't even valid. Belief is reserved for things like accepting the existence of God.

That seems obviously false. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes belief this way:

Contemporary Anglophone philosophers of mind generally use the term "belief" to refer to the attitude we have, roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true.

Clearly, one can regard many things as being true, not just the existence of God.

No one needs to believe in evolution for example, they accept the fact of evolution.

If you take it to be the case that evolution has occurred, then, by definition, you 'believe' that.

As far as the Multiverse is concerned, the question would be, is it reasonable to accept the possibility of multiple universes.

One could ask that question too, of course. But you haven't given a good reason to think the question in the OP isn't a valid one.

[historia]

But if your view is that the multiverse model is mathematically derived and rational, then we may be done here.

Before you all are "done" here, perhaps you can directly answer the question in the OP.

Is it reasonable to believe in the multiverse?

[historia]

No more so than believing in a parallel universe or in a god. Lacking any convincing evidence, none are reasonable beliefs.

What do you make, then, of the Forbes article that brunumb posted in post #22? It sets out to explain "why physicists overwhelmingly claim that a multiverse must exist."