The Multiverse: Our Universe Is Suspiciously Unlikely to Exist—Unless It Is One of Many
First things first.
I'm a big fan of the idea of "The Multiverse."
Genesis 1:1
"God created the Heaven(s)"
Berean study bible.
"Be like the Bereans."
Search out the scripture.
Where I differ is with the idea of eternal inflation.
If there is a Multiverse?
Then the same force that set this one in motion set all of them in motion.
There's not but one life source.
Period.
"Eternal inflation" doesn't explain where the "eternal inflationary field" (that gives rise to multiple universes) came from, nor does it explain where time space energy and matter all came from, or where the four fundamental forces that govern OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE came from.
They are only postulating this because they dont like the theistic implications of the big bang.
They can not like that statement all they want it's the truth.
It's why it's pretty easy to shoot down their nonsense as well.
How about we figure our universe out before we move on to pure conjecture?
That is not science although people wanna try and convince you otherwise.
On to the article.
"It’s easy to envisage other universes, governed by slightly different laws of physics, in which no intelligent life, nor indeed any kind of organized complex systems, could arise. Should we therefore be surprised that a universe exists in which we were able to emerge?"
(Just because you can envisage it? Doesn't make it so. Just like having a mathematical equation that works? Doesn't bring anything into actual physical existence.)
"That’s a question physicists including me have tried to answer for decades. But it is proving difficult."
(maybe because it's not true? How about we "envisage" that?)
"Although we can confidently trace cosmic history back to one second after the Big Bang, what happened before is harder to gauge. Our accelerators simply can’t produce enough energy to replicate the extreme conditions that prevailed in the first nanosecond."
(Yeah, exactly, let me explain it to you as to why that is:
Psalm 74:17
You (God in this context) set all the boundaries of the earth; You made the summer and winter.
Man will never get what God has chosen not to reveal to us. Ever.)
"The conditions of the universe can be described through its “fundamental constants”—fixed quantities in nature, such as the gravitational constant (called G) or the speed of light (called C). There are about 30 of these representing the sizes and strengths of parameters such as particle masses, forces, or the universe’s expansion. But our theories don’t explain what values these constants should have. Instead, we have to measure them and plug their values into our equations to accurately describe nature."
(Anybody else seeing the case for intelligent design in that statement? Or is it just me? If we have to, "plug their values into our equations to accurately describe nature" Then didn't something else have to do that as well? Like oh IDK, a transcendent Theistic force outside of our known physics and Universe? Wats that sound like to you? I mean we have to do so in order to get the equations to accurately describe nature. How did the information get there in the first place then? Information is always always always a sign of a cognizant, rational, sentient being. I know, I know, except in this case, DNA, RNA etc...Thats sarcasm BTW.)
"The values of the constants are in the range that allows complex systems such as stars, planets, carbon, and ultimately humans to evolve. Physicists have discovered that if we tweaked some of these parameters by just a few percent, it would render our universe lifeless. The fact that life exists, therefore, takes some explaining."
(No. Not explaining. Reasoning. It's different.
The fact that we have a universe?
Let alone human life in it?
Is a miracle in itself.
30 constants.
All within very specified ranges?
All of humanity could have spent it's entire existence trying to get it just right and never would have.
"Some argue it is just a lucky coincidence."
(Yeah...right...go with that, makes perfect sense. Sarcasm BTW.)
"An alternative explanation, however, is that we live in a multiverse, containing domains with different physical laws and values of fundamental constants. Most might be wholly unsuitable for life. But a few should, statistically speaking, be life-friendly."
(This is the "We dont like the theistic implications of the big bang so we gotta work around it somehow portion of our program :-). "Well if we just had enough of them (universes) one would have to be like ours."
But it never explains:
"where the "eternal inflationary field" (that gives rise to multiple universes) came from, nor does it explain where time space energy and matter all came from, or where the four fundamental forces that govern OUR KNOWN UNIVERSE came from.")
"Most physicists would agree there are galaxies that we can’t ever see, and that these outnumber the ones we can observe. If they stretched far enough, then everything we could ever imagine happening may be repeated over and over. Far beyond the horizon, we could all have avatars."
("If they stretched far enough, then everything we could ever imagine happening may be repeated over and over" Then why would you need a theory of the multiverse in the first place exactly? These people...)
"This vast (and mainly unobservable) domain would be the aftermath of “our” Big Bang—and would probably be governed by the same physical laws that prevail in the parts of the universe we can observe. But was our Big Bang the only one?"
The theory of inflation, which suggests that the early universe underwent a period when it doubled in size every trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second has genuine observational support. It accounts for why the universe is so large and smooth, except for fluctuations and ripples that are the “seeds” for galaxy formation."
"But physicists including Andrei Linde have shown that, under some specific but plausible assumptions about the uncertain physics at this ancient era, there would be an “eternal” production of Big Bangs—each giving rise to a new universe."
(Putting "specific but plausible assumptions about the uncertain physics" in that ancient era? You are ruling out "some specific but plausible assumptions" and putting in the ones you want to get the result you desire. How exactly is that not acting as an "Intelligent designer" when you do this?"
By seeking to disprove a theistic argent? They are inadvertently proving that you needed one to start with:
1 Corinthians 3:18-19
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
God just kinda proved that didn't he?
They sought out to show GOD wasn't necessary and inadvertently ended up proving that he WAS necessary!)
"String theory, which is an attempt to unify gravity with the laws of microphysics, conjectures everything in the universe is made up of tiny, vibrating strings. But it makes the assumption that there are more dimensions than the ones we experience. These extra dimensions, it suggests, are compacted so tightly together that we don’t notice them all."
("String theory...makes the assumption that there are more dimensions than the ones we experience."
There are and some of us have experienced some of them. The rest of it? My jury still out on it rn tbh...
But this? "String theory...makes the assumption that there are more dimensions than the ones we experience."
Yeah...Id go with that if I was you, explains a lot.)
"Excitingly, this is ongoing, with recent research suggesting you could imagine universes that are even more friendly to life than our own. Most “tweakings” of the physical constants, however, would render a universe stillborn."
(1) Imagining something doesn't make it so.
and
2) “tweakings” of the physical constants"
again implies an intelligent designer.)
"But our preferences are irrelevant to the way physical reality actually is—so we should surely be open minded to the possibility of an imminent grand cosmological revolution."
(Again,
"preferences"
They had to be imputed to get:
"some specific but plausible assumptions about the uncertain physics"
Mentioned above.
So how are they irrelevant?
The "preference"?
Is to work around the theistic implications of the big bang.
"we should surely be open minded to the possibility of an imminent grand cosmological revolution"
Be open minded about everything, aliens seeding life, multiverses etc...Any and everything except the truth we see in front of us of a Theistic agent acting upon his creation to fine tune it for life. That? that we just cant have an open mind about because we just dont want to believe there is eternal consequences for our actions/beliefs etc.)
"Physics or Metaphysics?
How do we know just how atypical our universe is? To answer that we need to work out the probabilities of each combination of constants. And that’s a can of worms that we can’t yet open—it will have to await huge theoretical advances."
(Again:
Psalm 74:17
You set all the boundaries of the earth; You made the summer and winter.
And my statement:
"30 constants.
All within very specified ranges?
All of humanity could have spent it's entire existence trying to get it just right and never would have."
It's infinity divided by infinity folks...have fun.)
"Specifically, if we had a theory that described physics under the extreme conditions of the ultra-early Big Bang—and if that theory had been corroborated in other ways, for instance by deriving some unexplained parameters in the standard model of particle physics—then if it predicted multiple Big Bangs, we should take it seriously."
("If", "and if", "deriving some unexplained parameters", "then if "
Thats not science.
Thats make believe.)
"Critics sometimes argue that the multiverse is unscientific because we can’t ever observe other universes. But I disagree. We can’t observe the interior of black holes, but we believe what physicist Roger Penrose says about what happens there—his theory has gained credibility by agreeing with many things we can observe."
(This is where I just wanna throw a brick at 'em and tell 'em to shut up and sit down!
Penrose theory agrees with many things we can observe.
We cant observe all of this universe, let alone any parts of any others.
Therefore, the authors fallacy is that of:
I mean come on.
I was teaching my son these in middle school for goodness sakes.
Martin Rees
(Author of the piece)
Lord Martin Rees is Emeritus Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics at the University of Cambridge. He holds the honorary title of Astronomer Royal. Lord Rees is co-founder of the Centre for the Study of the Existential Risk, an early stage initiative which brings together a scientist, philosopher and software entrepreneur.
So ask yourself:
Did he not know he was using false equivalence in the example above?
Or is he deliberately pushing an agenda?
Think about it.
I think you know the answer.
These people just aren't used to anybody challenging them in any way shape or form.
Let alone a hippie biker, cannabis's enthusiast, Christian from the sticks.
I mean let me at 'em man.
Come on.
How would a crowd react IF they see old biker dude up there going toe to toe with 'em showing them first hand their wisdom is foolishness in God's eyes?)
"But it’s no reason to dismiss the multiverse as unscientific."
Baloney.
Its not based on anything observable or measurable.
No comments:
Post a Comment