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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #90]

Each of these different theories is proposed by experts, so it is easily shown that these theories are not based on science but simply a desire not to believe that a God created this universe.

Or ... could it have nothing at all to do with any expert's opinions of gods and their existence, and instead be one of many attempts to help solve an open science problem? We don't know how the universe came into existence, so scientists are trying to come up with possible solutions within the realm of science using mathematics and theoretical physics, along with observations, to find potential solutions that reveal themselves through those efforts. If something results that is mathematically viable it is put forward as a hypothesis, then everyone throws darts at it to try and detemine if it has any validity.

The multiverse idea is just one of many such hypotheses, and it may have no utility at all in the end, but there's no harm in putting it out there for people to ponder. As far as I know it doesn't impact anything in our normal lives as far as laws, freedoms, availability of food and shelter, etc. and is just a theoretical physics idea that people can get interested in, or ignore with no consequence (which is my particular choice). I seriously doubt it has anything whatsoever to do with "a desire not to believe that a God created this universe."

[EarthScienceguy]

th[Replying to DrNoGods in post #91]

Or ... could it have nothing at all to do with any expert's opinions of gods and their existence, and instead be one of many attempts to help solve an open science problem? We don't know how the universe came into existence, so scientists are trying to come up with possible solutions within the realm of science using mathematics and theoretical physics, along with observations, to find potential solutions that reveal themselves through those efforts. If something results that is mathematically viable it is put forward as a hypothesis, then everyone throws darts at it to try and detemine if it has any validity.

Anything beyond this universe is unobservable and anything that exists would exist with different physical constants if there are any. I believe the very nature of the environment that has to exist outside this universe demands that there is a God. Those that are making up these theories have the starting premise that there is not a God and that God is not a possible explanation.

The multiverse idea is just one of many such hypotheses, and it may have no utility at all in the end, but there's no harm in putting it out there for people to ponder. As far as I know it doesn't impact anything in our normal lives as far as laws, freedoms, availability of food and shelter, etc. and is just a theoretical physics idea that people can get interested in, or ignore with no consequence (which is my particular choice). I seriously doubt it has anything whatsoever to do with "a desire not to believe that a God created this universe."

The question in the OP is, "Is it reasonable to believe the multiverse theory?" So is it what makes it reasonable if it makes such outlandish predictions.

[Clownboat]

The lunacy of the different theories makes all of them not reasonable to believe including the multiverse theory. Each of these different theories is proposed by experts, so it is easily shown that these theories are not based on science but simply a desire not to believe that a God created this universe.

Please explain this desire to not believe in a god that created this universe. It would be really neat if this is in fact how our universe came to be and I would want to know about this creator if it did happen that way.

I sure don't have this desire, so I wonder why you would pretend such a thing is real. Hmmm... Pretending things are real that aren't... I'm seeing a pattern.

[Jose Fly]

Hmmm... Pretending things are real that aren't... I'm seeing a pattern.

Don't you appreciate how lucky we are? We have ESG in our midst, a person who knows more about genetics than professional geneticists, knows more about evolutionary biology than professional evolutionary biologists, and knows more about theoretical physics than professional theoretical physicists.

So when ESG says something is so, it is so, merely because he says so.

Seriously though, I am completely gobsmacked at this sort of hubris from creationists. I know it's the Dunning-Kruger Effect, but I still don't know how someone can exhibit that behavior and be completely oblivious to it (especially in this case, given the range of topics). There's only one explanation that makes sense to me, and I feel kinda bad for settling on it. But I really have nothing else.

[Clownboat]

Those that are making up these theories have the starting premise that there is not a God and that God is not a possible explanation.

As I have told you already, this universe was created via a fairy fart.
Those that are making up these god concepts are doing so because they have the starting premise that there are no fairies.

Why do you reject the one true fairy that farted and created our universe? It surely can't be because the statements above are silly now can it?

[brunumb]

Anything beyond this universe is unobservable and anything that exists would exist with different physical constants if there are any.

We can't observe it so we don't know anything about it, but you know that anything that did exist would have different physical constants, if any. How ?

I believe the very nature of the environment that has to exist outside this universe demands that there is a God.

What environment has to exist outside this universe? Why would it demand the existence of a god?

[Inquirer]

If people take some time to grapple with the issues raised by quantum physics, they might begin to appreciate the profundity of the problems.

QM shows that we never observe reality or understand it. All we do is create models of reality, we understand the models but not the reality itself.

We do not know (and in fact cannot know) what is there until we observe and what we observe cannot be assumed to be what it was before the observation.

[Purple Knight]

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.

My answer is the same as before. It's quite possible that there are more universes. Frankly I think it makes more sense if everything happens somewhere than if some things which are possible simply never happen.

But the bar of reasonable is a high one, so no. It's not reasonable to believe in what you can't demonstrate. The Loch Ness monster is a bad example because at this point they've dragged that lake and gone through it with sonar looking for the thing and nobody's found it. But before that, it was still regarded as unreasonable to believe in such a creature, though many people did believe in it, some people thought they saw it, but too bad - they couldn't provide concrete evidence.

Believing in a multiverse is the same as believing in fairies because if there's a multiverse then somewhere there are fairies. Now, if I say I believe in fairies I will be certifiably delusional, which is not reasonable. So no, believing in a multiverse is quite unreasonable.

[Inquirer]

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.

My answer is the same as before. It's quite possible that there are more universes.

I just want to point out the meaning of the term "universe", if you rewrite what you said above using the definition then we get:

It's quite possible that there are more everythings.

Now, doesn't that sound just a little silly?

[Purple Knight]

Now, doesn't that sound just a little silly?

Only if you define the universe in such a way that nothing can be outside of it.

If something else exists, something you could never get to no matter how far or fast you went, something separate from this everything, unreachable by travel in distance, what would you call that but a separate universe - another everything?