Zone1 “If the universe had a beginning, then we cannot avoid the question of creation.”

[DonGlock26]

Uh, the only physics we have.

How does the multiverse emerge from it?

 

[DonGlock26]

I would expect an infinite number of universes. Reality is stranger than fiction.

Each universe could be like one book on a bookshelf in creator's library.
We have no idea how many universes have been created. It could be just this one or
an incredible number.

 

[ding]

What physics does the multiverse emerge from?

It's really just speculation at this point. Once they grudgingly accepted the universe began, they had to do something else to make it seem natural.

 

[ding]

Each universe could be like one book on a bookshelf in creator's library.
We have no idea how many universes have been created. It could be just this one or
an incredible number.

Exactly. It's all speculation and philosophy at this point. I keep coming back to we only exist in the mind of God. The possibilities are endless.

 

[DonGlock26]

Exactly. It's all speculation and philosophy at this point. I keep coming back to we only exist in the mind of God. The possibilities are endless.

I concur. IMHO- reality is the creator. This universe is his creation.

 

[DonGlock26]

It's really just speculation at this point. Once they grudgingly accepted the universe began, they had to do something else to make it seem natural.

Yep, all their physic/math philosophy is designed to refute the existence of a creator outside of spacetime.
They DO NOT like that the Big Bang singularity points towards a creator.

 

[ding]

Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe, and is one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.

Yep, red shift and the CMB are the physical evidence that the universe was created from nothing. Or more accurately, not from existing matter or energy.

 

[ding]

Yep, all their physic/math philosophy is designed to refute the existence of a creator outside of spacetime.
They DO NOT like that the Big Bang singularity points towards a creator.

Not all of them. Georges Lemaître (1894–1966) is recognized as the father of the Big Bang theory. He was a Belgian Catholic priest, mathematician, and astronomer who first proposed that the universe began from a single, tiny point, or "primeval atom," and has been expanding ever since.

 

[DonGlock26]

Not all of them. Georges Lemaître (1894–1966) is recognized as the father of the Big Bang theory. He was a Belgian Catholic priest, mathematician, and astronomer who first proposed that the universe began from a single, tiny point, or "primeval atom," and has been expanding ever since.

I am familiar with Father Lemaître. I was speaking of the atheist camp.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How does the multiverse emerge from it?

It follows from the mathematics.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They DO NOT like that the Big Bang singularity points towards a creator.

No, this is stupid and childish.

 

[DonGlock26]

It follows from the mathematics.

That's not physical evidence. It's theoretical philosophy.

Although some scientists have analyzed data in search of evidence for other universes, no statistically significant evidence has been found. Critics argue that the multiverse concept lacks testability and falsifiability, which are essential for scientific inquiry, and that it raises unresolved metaphysical issues.

Multiverse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DonGlock26]

No, this is stupid and childish.

How so?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's not physical evidence.

Nobody said it was.

But theoretical evidence is still evidence.

 

[DonGlock26]

Nobody said it was.

But theoretical evidence is still evidence.

Theoretical evidence of a multiverse should be based on empirical evidence. Where is it?



"But I’m less titallated by multiverse theories than I once was, for a couple of reasons. First, science is in a slump, and its credibility has taken a beating lately. Science is ill-served when prominent scientists tout ideas that cannot be tested and hence are, it must be said, pseudoscientific. Multiverses based on string theory and chaotic inflation, which are themselves unfalsifiable, are doubly pseudoscientific."

Multiverses Are Pseudoscientific Bullshit — John Horgan (The Science Writer)

February 21, 2024. Way back in 1990 I tossed off a fluffy item for Scientific American , “Here a Universe, There a Universe,” about whether our cosmos might be just one in an “infinitude,” as several theories of physics implied. I kept the tone light, because I didn’t want readers to tak

johnhorgan.org

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Theoretical evidence of a multiverse should be based on empirical evidence. Where is it?

This doesn't make sense. The goal is to support it with empirical evidence. And one would be right to say we may never be able to test it. But then it also does not affect us in the least.

Unless we find a way for the universes to exchange information.

For example, maybe these universes are not so distinct and are just "areas on an infinite 'sheet'". And, given enough time, they do exchange information.

And if not having empirical evidence is, alone, 'speculation'... well, I have some news for theists.

 

[ding]

For example, maybe these universes are not so distinct and are just "areas on an infinite 'sheet'". And, given enough time, they do exchange information.

Spacetime is curved. So, not likely. Unless of course, nothing is as it seems.