First evidence of a multiverse?

maxx

well, we may never know, yet if there were more universes than this one, it would have to be connected  to this one, because being apart requires a separate area and distance from ours, and there is nothing  outside of our universe, hence no distance for another universe to be aside from connected to ours. of course i have heard the idea that our universe is simply a cell among countless other cells that make up an entire system of its own. @Factfinder

Factfinder

@maxx

Yeah that's a given we may never know. Maybe one day our decedents might? The problem right now is we can only see as far back in time as the light from the bang allows. I thought the interesting thing about the video though was the things we're seeing for the first time. Like peering into the once thought vast "cold spots" where it appeared very little matter was there; only to realize it looks like what we'd think two bubble universes would look like when they collide. That's what's expected in inflationary theory with quantum mechanics as a model. The video did make the point multiverse would have to be connected in some way with our universe as you alluded to but it's just fun to speculate about space the more we learn. It's infinite in its expansion yet has a finite past. There definitely some physics involved we've yet to discover is what I'm thinking whether multiverse is a reality or not...

maxx

Ot alsobegs the question of if they all appeared at once, or at random. There is also no reason to think that our universe is any thing special other than the fact that we are in it
 I think it would be nice if we could view the universe from afar and see the whole system at once. @Factfinder

Factfinder

@maxx

That would be an interesting view indeed.

just_sayin

@Factfinder

Glad to see that you are looking for answers on how a universe could come from zero space.  The primary reason why a multiverse is brought up, is not because of the evidence (there is none for it), but because of the fine tuning issue.  The logic goes that a multiverse makes it more likely to have a universe exist with all the settings in the life permitting zone as ours does.  Some observations about your video:
1)  The theory of cold spots being 'collisions' is not a new theory but has been theorized for many years.  There are many common explanations for the 'cold' spots, rather than needing to appeal to multiverse.  
2)  Your video suggested inflation scenarios play a key role in creating multiverses.  This is problematic in that it would be a violation of the BGV theorem, that says that any universe, or multiverse, that has been on average expanding (inflating), can not be past eternal but results in a singularity (starting point needing a cause).  
3) If multiverses exist, we should all be dead from an eternity of universe radiation 'leaking' into our universe.  Even if it takes an infinitely long time to create a universe, over eternity, the radiation would be at infinite amounts. The fact there is no detectable radiation strongly suggests there is no multiverse.
4)  Since you deny the universe is finely tuned, know that any source that creates an infinity of multiverses must be much more finely tuned, a near infinite amount, than our universe, to have created an infinite number of universes.
5) Since what ever would be creating universes would have had to exist for an eternity, the different multiverses would all be interacting with one another, and we should see more of a stead state universe, rather than one that is expanding.

Here's my AI's comment:

The multiverse hypothesis, while intriguing, faces significant challenges and lacks robust empirical evidence. Several factors suggest that the multiverse may not exist, including the limitations of current observational data and theoretical inconsistencies.

## Cold Spots and the Multiverse

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) cold spot, while initially proposed as potential evidence for a multiverse, is likely explicable through conventional cosmological mechanisms:

1. Statistical fluctuation: The cold spot may simply be a rare but statistically possible fluctuation within the standard cosmological model[3].

2. Supervoid hypothesis: While initially proposed, recent studies have shown that the presence of a supervoid is unlikely to fully explain the cold spot[2][4].

3. Lack of polarization evidence: The Planck team's analysis of CMB polarization data showed no significant traces of anomalies in the polarization maps, which would be expected if the cold spot were due to a collision with another universe[4].

## BGV Theorem and Eternal Inflation

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) theorem provides strong theoretical evidence against an eternal inflationary multiverse:

1. Past-incompleteness: The BGV theorem demonstrates that inflationary models cannot be past-eternal, implying a beginning to the inflationary phase[5].

2. Limitations of inflation: This theorem suggests that even in a multiverse scenario, the process of eternal inflation must have had a beginning, challenging the concept of an infinitely old multiverse[5].

3. Quantum effects: While some argue that quantum effects might circumvent the BGV theorem, this remains speculative and lacks empirical support.

## Additional Considerations

1. Occam's Razor: The multiverse hypothesis introduces unnecessary complexity without providing additional explanatory power for observed phenomena.

2. Lack of testability: The multiverse theory remains largely unfalsifiable, making it challenging to subject to rigorous scientific scrutiny.

3. Alternative explanations: Many cosmic phenomena attributed to the multiverse can be explained within the framework of standard cosmological models.

In conclusion, while the multiverse remains an intriguing concept, the current evidence, including the CMB cold spot and the implications of the BGV theorem, does not strongly support its existence. The cold spot is more likely explained by conventional cosmological processes, and the BGV theorem poses significant challenges to the concept of an eternal inflationary multiverse. As our understanding of the universe continues to evolve, it is crucial to remain open to new evidence while maintaining a critical and empirical approach to cosmological theories.

Citations:

[1] https://www.the-independent.com/tech/parallel-universe-proof-multiverse-cold-spot-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb-a7743216.html

[2] https://room.eu.com/news/cold-spot-in-cmb-could-be-evidence-for-a-multiverse

[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/cosmic-bruise-could-be-evidence-multiple-universes-ncna771076

[4] https://physicsworld.com/a/the-enduring-enigma-of-the-cosmic-cold-spot/

[5] https://www.space.com/cosmic-microwave-background-cold-spot-perplexed-astronomers

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot

[7] https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/cmb-cold-spot/

[8] https://news.fnal.gov/2022/01/scientists-move-a-step-closer-to-understanding-the-cold-spot-in-the-cosmic-microwave-background/

I love that you are looking for answers.  I would love to talk about more cosmological theories with you, or whom ever feels comfortable doing so.  

Factfinder

@just_sayin

The theory of cold spots being 'collisions' is not a new theory but has been theorized for many years.  There are many common explanations for the 'cold' spots than multiverse

Well it was new to me that they actually recorded what they believe to be two universes colliding. Don't think anyone made the point the theory was new itself. Of course you have a hard time keeping things in context as you desperately cling to what ever seems to support your views and downplaying what ever goes against your narrative. Still no evidence "god did it".

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

The theory of cold spots being 'collisions' is not a new theory but has been theorized for many years.  There are many common explanations for the 'cold' spots than multiverse

Well it was new to me that they actually recorded what they believe to be two universes colliding. Don't think anyone made the point the theory was new itself. Of course you have a hard time keeping things in context as you desperately cling to what ever seems to support your views and downplaying what ever goes against your narrative. Still no evidence "god did it".

Again, you misunderstand my position.  If God used naturalistic means to create our universe or multiverse, it does not affect my belief in God at all.  I don't need any theory of the origin of the universe to be true.  However, the atheist, needs there to be a naturalistic explanation, or else their faith is destroyed.  

From my AI on why it is more probable that God created the universe than a naturalistic explanation:

The proposition that God created the universe is more probable than naturalistic explanations, based on several philosophical and scientific considerations:

## The Cosmological Argument

The Kalam Cosmological Argument provides a strong case for a divine creator:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Scientific evidence, including the Big Bang theory and the second law of thermodynamics, strongly supports the premise that the universe had a beginning[4]. This cause must be timeless, spaceless, and immensely powerful - attributes consistent with the concept of God.

## Fine-Tuning and Design

The universe exhibits remarkable fine-tuning for life. The fundamental constants and laws of physics appear precisely calibrated to allow for the existence of complex structures, including life. This fine-tuning is more plausibly explained by an intelligent designer than by chance or necessity[3].

## The Applicability of Mathematics

The effectiveness of mathematics in describing the physical world is striking. As Eugene Wigner noted, this "unreasonable effectiveness" is difficult to explain naturalistically. A transcendent mind (God) provides a more satisfactory explanation for why nature is "written in the language of mathematics"[3].

## Ontological Considerations

The existence of the universe itself requires explanation. The principle of sufficient reason suggests that everything that exists has an explanation for its existence. If the universe has a reason for its existence, that reason is most plausibly God[2]. This can be formalized as:

1. Everything has a reason for its existence.

2. If the universe has a reason for its existence, it is that God caused it.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, God caused the universe to exist.

## Explanatory Power

The God hypothesis provides greater explanatory power than naturalistic alternatives. It not only accounts for the origin of the universe but also offers explanations for other features of reality, such as objective morality, consciousness, and the apparent design in nature[4].

## Limitations of Naturalistic Explanations

Naturalistic explanations often struggle to account for the absolute beginning of the universe. Many models attempting to avoid this beginning, such as eternal inflation or cyclic models, face significant theoretical challenges. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem suggests that even inflationary models require a beginning[4].

In conclusion, while not providing absolute proof, the cumulative case for God as the creator of the universe is stronger than naturalistic alternatives. It offers a coherent explanation for the origin, fine-tuning, and rational intelligibility of the cosmos, while avoiding the philosophical difficulties associated with an uncaused universe or infinite regress of causes.

Citations:

[1] https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_1365.cfm

[2] https://mcgrathblog.nd.edu/faith-and-science-acknowledging-god-as-the-creator

[3] https://creation.com/arguments-for-god

[4] https://www.str.org/w/why-would-god-be-the-best-explanation-for-the-existence-of-the-universe

[5] https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/x2qr4i/is_believing_in_god_the_most_reasonable/

[6] https://iep.utm.edu/design-arguments-for-existence-of-god/

[7] https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/

[8] https://physicsworld.com/a/the-enduring-enigma-of-the-cosmic-cold-spot/

Factfinder

@just_sayin

The God hypothesis provides greater explanatory power than naturalistic alternatives.

Well of course, anything imaginable you come up with goes cause who can prove or disprove you, right? And you consider that a mature, well thought out opinion? Still missing that zombie DNA are we?

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hey it's not a fact.

@Factfinder

Birth, life and rebirth of a confined material system.

I suppose that if the potential of space is limitless, then possibilities are also limitless.

Multiverses could all be contained within a super-universe, amongst a super-system of multi-super-universes.

And so on.

Our Universe might be tiny in comparison.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Again, you misunderstand my position.  If God used naturalistic means to create our universe or multiverse, it does not affect my belief in God at all.  I don't need any theory of the origin of the universe to be true.  However, the atheist, needs there to be a naturalistic explanation, or else their faith is destroyed

That's your pious assumption as atheism doesn't have a set of beliefs that they profess and this thread isn't about your god so what exactly did I get wrong about your position? You said "the god hypothesis has more explanatory power"  and my response was "god did it" doesn't explain nothing but you can adlib your way cause who can prove or disprove an imaginary god? Please try and keep up.

Joeseph

@Factfinder

He never stops trying to convince us all there's a god , there's something truly pathetic about Just Lying constantly preaching non stop hoping to convince Atheists to believe in magic , the guy is truly needy to put it mildly.

maxx

That is one idea. In quantum mechanics,  some believe that making a decision,  results in a split into another universe in which a different decision is made. Or as you put it,  our universe is simply a very small part of a entire system.  Kind of like the cells in our body, in where a cell represents a universe,  but is part of billions of other cells. Another idea, is that everything in the universe revolves around everything else, and the logic follows, that the universe is also revolving around other universes.  @Fredsnephew

maxx

aside from my reply to fred, there is another strange idea that you may look at.   https://www.sciencealert.com/wildly-fun-new-paper-compares-the-human-brain-to-the-structure-of-the-universe ; @Factfinder

polytheistwitch

I've always believed since  the pantheons of gods exist somewhere other than here that there are different dimensions. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the universe  is layered. It would create the ability to have multiverses one on top of the other in the same space. Shamans will say when they're on journeys that the spirit world is layered on top of the physical world and that things like mountains trees and lakes creeks will line up. It makes sense to me to find out that's how this works.

MayCaesar

I am highly skeptical. Just like with the simulation theory, predictions of the multiverse theory are very hard to untangle from other phenomena that do not require the multiverse theory to hold to exist. The multiverse theory may be a convenient framework to use when talking about certain cosmological phenomena, but to apply it to particular observations such as those of cold or hot spots seems far-fetched.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

That would be the great thing about detecting phenomenon not witnessed before and then hypothesizing. It's the skepticism that can lead us to answers, what ever they may be. So what is your opinion on those cold spots? Just space devoid of much matter?

MayCaesar

@Factfinder

There are some simulations that can reproduce cold spots. It could be just a natural statistical effect: some areas of space are going to be more packed with matter and some less, and observe enough areas - and you will find some with barely anything in them. But whether this is a good explanation depends on the underlying model: some allow for bigger outliers that could explain the degree of "coldness" we observe, others prohibit it.

I am not aware of simulations that would reconcile the cold spots with the multiverse theory, although it could simply be because the computations required to test that are prohibitively expensive.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: All the major cosmogonic models have problems

All the major cosmogonic models for how the universe originated have serious problems.  If you ever spend any time reading about them, you know there is nothing cosmologists love to do more than trash another cosmologists theory. Here are a few of the major theories and some of the known problems with each one:

The origin of the universe is a profound question that has led to many competing cosmological models. This report will discuss several major cosmological models, highlighting the arguments and problems associated with each, including insights from prominent physicists such as Sean Carroll, Alexander Vilenkin, Alan Guth, Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking, and Roger Penrose. Additionally, the implications of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem will be examined, along with the specific mathematical challenges faced by models like quantum fluctuations and Euclidean cosmological structures.

    Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang Theory posits that the universe originated from a singular point approximately 13.8 billion years ago, leading to cosmic expansion. This model effectively explains many observations, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation and the abundance of light elements. However, it struggles with several fundamental problems:

    Singularity Problem**: At the moment of the Big Bang, densities and temperatures reach infinite levels, which incompletely describes the physics at this time. Current physics, based on general relativity, fails to operate in conditions of infinite density.

    Initial Conditions**: The theory does not explain why the universe started in such a specific low-entropy state conducive to life. The required conditions for the universe's characteristics appear arbitrary and not predicted by the model itself.

    Steady State Theory

The Steady State Theory suggests the universe is eternal and maintains constant density despite expansion, as new matter is continuously created. While it alleviates the need for a singularity, it is largely discredited due to:

    Observational Evidence**: Core observational evidence, like the cosmic microwave background, supports a universe that has evolved from a hot, dense state, contradicting the Steady State assumptions that imply uniformity throughout time.

    Energy Conservation**: The continual creation of matter in an expanding universe raises fundamental questions about energy conservation, which are problematic in the context of modern physics.

    Eternal Inflation

This model, proposed by Guth and others, suggests that quantum fluctuations can lead to regions of space in constant inflation, creating "baby universes." Challenges include:

    Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem**: This theorem asserts that any universe which has expanded must have had a beginning, thereby countering the assumption of an infinitely extending inflating universe. It implies a past spacetime boundary, challenging models of eternal inflation.

    Initial Conditions**: The model faces difficulties in explaining how inflation starts and ends plausibly, as every mechanism suggested must conform to physical laws during the initial fluctuation phase, which remains inadequately defined.

    Quantum Fluctuation Models

These models propose that the universe can arise from quantum fluctuations, relying upon vacuum states. Issues here include:

    Duration of Fluctuations**: Quantum fluctuations exist only for extremely brief periods (on the order of the Planck time, \\( t \approx 10^{-43} \\) seconds), casting doubt on whether there is sufficient time for a coherent universe to emerge, let alone go through inflation or develop physical laws.

    Causality and Energy Conservation**: While quantum mechanics suggests that energy conservation may be sidestepped through virtual particles in vacuums, the implications of generating a stable universe from such transient events is highly speculative and lacks rigorous mathematical framework.

    Euclidean Models

Euclidean models attempt to describe the universe's origin through a framework where space can be interpreted as beginning from a void, with time behaving similarly. Problems include:

    Boundary Conditions**: Similar to quantum fluctuation models, Euclidean models often rely on specific initial conditions that lead to a universe without a well-defined past. The reliance on the absence of an initial matter configuration raises questions about stability and physical feasibility.

    Reconciliation of Theories**: There's an ongoing search for a unified framework combining general relativity and quantum mechanics (such as through the Wheeler-DeWitt equation), which currently does not yield clear solutions or predictions that agree with observational data.

    Implications of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem

The BGV theorem profoundly impacts cosmological models by asserting that a universe that has been expanding cannot be infinitely old. It actively challenges:

    Eternal Universe Models**: The BGV theorem undermines the logic behind both cyclic and eternal inflation models, proving that all expanding spacetime must have originated from a singularity or beginning point in time.^ This introduces significant limitations to models requiring a history that extends infinitely into the past.

    Reassessment of Theoretical Frameworks**: Models must now grapple with the implications of a non-eternal universe, driving further refinement in cosmological theories as discrepancies in predictions increase with observational evidence.

    Conclusion

The exploration of cosmological models continues to expose the intricate complexities of the universe’s beginning. From the singularity of the Big Bang to the speculative nature of quantum fluctuations and the challenges posed by eternal models, the quest for understanding remains rich with intellectual challenges. Despite various theoretical advancements, fundamental questions about origin and causality invite ongoing investigation, emphasizing the need for cohesive frameworks within both theoretical and observational cosmology. The interplay of mathematics within these theories adds additional layers of depth to what we currently understand—and what remains profoundly enigmatic—about the universe's origin and evolution.

Sources: 

[1] Timeline of cosmological theories - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cosmological_theories

[2] Cosmological Theories Through History - The Physics of the Universe, https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/cosmological.html

[3] Cosmological Models of the Universe- Overview - Cosmotography, https://www.cosmotography.com/images/cosmological_modeling_overview.html

[4] Origin of the Universe: How Did It Begin and How Will It End?, https://www.apu.apus.edu/area-of-study/math-and-science/resources/origin-of-the-universe/

[5] Models of the Origin of the Universe | Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/cosmology/models-of-the-origin-of-the-universe/?srsltid=AfmBOoqUfK_LhlIGBobDyw-5ii_qMhD4dr60NjrQFkiXgs1cg77cqbLS

[6] Cosmological Models - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics, https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/physics-and-astronomy/cosmological-models

[7] Cosmological model | astrophysics - Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/science/cosmological-model

[8] Cosmological models - (Symbolic Computation) - Fiveable, https://fiveable.me/key-terms/symbolic-computation/cosmological-models

[9] [PDF] Simple cosmological models and their descriptions of the universe, https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1270697/FULLTEXT01.pdf

[10] Cosmological Argument - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/

[11] Cosmological argument - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

[12] Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God, https://1000wordphilosophy.com/2021/11/14/cosmological-arguments/

[13] The Cosmological Argument, https://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter 3 Religion/Cosmological.htm

[14] 100 years of mathematical cosmology: Models, theories, and ..., https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2021.0191

[15] 100 years of mathematical cosmology: Models, theories and ..., https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2021.0171

[16] 100 years of mathematical cosmology: Models, theories, and problems, https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.16443

[17] [PDF] 100 years of mathematical cosmology: Models, theories, and problems, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.16443

[18] Modern Cosmological Observations and Problems - G. Bothun, https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Bothun2/Bothun1.html

[19] [PDF] Evidence for the Big Bang - The University of Western Australia, https://www.uwa.edu.au/study/-/media/Faculties/Science/Docs/Evidence-for-the-Big-Bang.pdf

[20] Problems with the Big Bang Theory - Science | HowStuffWorks, https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm

[21] The Scientific Evidence Against the Big Bang - LPP Fusion, https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/

[22] What is the Big Bang Theory? - Space.com, https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

[23] Evidence of the Big Bang Theory | Proofs & Expansion - Study.com, https://study.com/academy/lesson/evidence-for-the-big-bang-theory-background-radiation-red-shift-and-expansion.html

[24] Steady-state theory | Definition & Facts | Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/science/steady-state-theory

[25] What is the Steady State Hypothesis? - Universe Today, https://www.universetoday.com/145060/what-is-the-steady-state-hypothesis/

[26] The Steady State Theory - Explaining Science, https://explainingscience.org/2015/07/25/the-steady-state-theory/

[27] Steady-state model - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model

[28] Arguments For And Against The Steady-state Theory, https://science.jrank.org/pages/6476/Steady-State-Theory-Arguments-against-steady-state-theory.html

[29] Martin White: Comparison of Models, https://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/modelcmp.html

[30] Andrew Holster, Comparing Cosmological Models - PhilArchive, https://philarchive.org/rec/HOLCCM-2

[31] [PDF] Comparing Cosmological Models. - viXra.org, https://vixra.org/pdf/2303.0128v1.pdf

[32] comprehensive comparison of cosmological models from the latest ..., https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/426/3/2452/989201

[33] How Did the Universe Start? – Sean Carroll, https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2007/04/27/how-did-the-universe-start/

[34] Sean Carroll talks about the beginning of the Universe., https://slate.com/technology/2016/02/sean-carroll-talks-about-the-beginning-of-the-universe.html

[35] What Happened at the Big Bang? – Sean Carroll, https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2017/01/25/what-happened-at-the-big-bang/

[36] Post-Debate Reflections – Sean Carroll, https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/02/24/post-debate-reflections/

[37] The Cosmological Constant - Sean M. Carroll, https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Carroll2/frames.html

[38] Carroll's five replies to the fine-tuning argument: Number 1, https://letterstonature.wordpress.com/2014/08/17/carrolls-five-replies-to-the-fine-tuning-argument-number-1/

[39] God & Cosmology: Sean Carroll | Debates - Reasonable Faith, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/god-and-cosmology-the-existence-of-god-in-light-of-contemporary-cosmol/

[40] Beyond Falsifiability – Sean Carroll, https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2018/01/17/beyond-falsifiability/

[41] Cosmology and the Past Hypothesis – Sean Carroll, https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/07/09/cosmology-and-the-past-hypothesis/

[42] A Nonlocal Approach to the Cosmological Constant Problem - arXiv, https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.09715

[43] How seriously is Sean Carroll taken? : r/AskPhysics - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/o52zar/how_seriously_is_sean_carroll_taken/

[44] Contemporary Cosmology and the Beginning of the Universe, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/contemporary-cosmology-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe/

[45] The Beginning of the Universe | Alexander Vilenkin - Inference Review, https://inference-review.com/article/the-beginning-of-the-universe

[46] The Ultimate Question of Origins: God and the Beginning of the ..., https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/the-existence-of-god/the-ultimate-question-of-origins-god-and-the-beginning-of-the-universe/

[47] What Happened Before the Big Bang? - Tufts Now, https://now.tufts.edu/2012/05/29/beginning-was-beginning

[48] Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde–Guth–Vilenkin_theorem

[49] The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem in extended de Sitter spaces - arXiv, https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.10958

[50] Correct interpretation of the Borde Guth Vilenkin (BGV) theorem?, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/308325/correct-interpretation-of-the-borde-guth-vilenkin-bgv-theorem

[51] Misrepresenting the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem | Reasonable Faith, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P40/misrepresenting-the-borde-guth-vilenkin-theorem/

[52] 6.2.2 Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God, https://pressbooks.ccconline.org/introtophilosophy/chapter/6-2-2-cosmological-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god-2/

[53] Putting BGV theorem arguments to rest, once and for all. - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/159w805/putting_bgv_theorem_arguments_to_rest_once_and/

[54] What is the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, and is it taken ... - Quora, https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-Borde-Guth-Vilenkin-theorem-and-is-it-taken-seriously-by-modern-science

[55] Alan Guth - Important Scientists - The Physics of the Universe, https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_guth.html

[56] The Inflationary Universe: Guth, Alan: 9780201328400 - Amazon.com, https://www.amazon.com/Inflationary-Universe-Alan-Guth/dp/0201328402

[57] The Bourgain-Guth argument for proving restriction theorems, https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2010/12/28/the-bourgain-guth-argument-for-proving-restriction-theorems/

[58] [PDF] Inflation, https://www.astro.caltech.edu/~ccs/Ay21/guth_inflation.pdf

[59] Oral History Interviews | Alan Guth – Session II - AIP.ORG, https://www.aip.org/history-programs/niels-bohr-library/oral-histories/34306-2

[60] The problem-solver: Cosmic inflation | symmetry magazine, https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the-problem-solver-cosmic-inflation?language_content_entity=und

[61] WMAP Inflation Theory - NASA, https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_infl.html

[62] The Inflationary Universe, http://astroweb.case.edu/ssm/USNA287/InflationGuthSteinhardt.html

[63] Graceful exit problem - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graceful_exit_problem

[64] Alan Guth's Eternal Inflation as a Model for an Infinite Regress in ..., https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/1fjy32o/alan_guths_eternal_inflation_as_a_model_for_an/

[65] Alexander Vilenkin: Did the Universe have a Beginning?, https://www.magiscenter.com/blog/alexander-vilenkin-did-the-universe-have-a-beginning

[66] Vilenkin on the Universe's Coming into Being without a Cause, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/vilenkin-on-the-universes-coming-into-being-without-a-cause/

[67] What Came Before the Big Bang? | Discover Magazine, https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/what-came-before-the-big-bang

[68] [hep-th/0106083] Cosmological constant problems and their solutions, https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0106083

[69] 733 Misrepresenting the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem-Old, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P80/misrepresenting-the-borde-guth-vilenkin-theorem-old

[70] Lawrence Krauss On 'A Universe From Nothing' - NPR, https://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing

[71] Lawrence Krauss — Our Origins and the Weight of Space - OnBeing, https://onbeing.org/programs/lawrence-krauss-our-origins-and-the-weight-of-space/

[72] 'A Universe From Nothing,' by Lawrence M. Krauss, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html

[73] Lawrence Krauss' Response and Perspective - Reasonable Faith, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/lawrence-krauss-response-and-perspective/

[74] Uncovering Krauss's Flaws: Analysis of Claims in a Universe from ..., https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/uncovering-krausss-flaws-analysis-of-claims-in-a-universe-from-nothing.796074/

[75] Cosmology without Design | Lawrence Krauss - Inference Review, https://inference-review.com/article/cosmology-without-design

[76] Lawrence Krauss' Theory of Origin - Physics Stack Exchange, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9387/lawrence-krauss-theory-of-origin

[77] Lawrence Krauss and "Nothing" : r/DebateReligion - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/qr0p7k/lawrence_krauss_and_nothing/

[78] The Origin of the Universe - Stephen Hawking Estate, https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-origin-of-the-universe

[79] Stephen Hawking Explains The Origin of the Universe - Farnam Street, https://fs.blog/stephen-hawking-explains-origin-universe/

[80] Stephen Hawking's final, god's-eye view of the cosmos ponders the ..., https://theconversation.com/stephen-hawkings-final-gods-eye-view-of-the-cosmos-ponders-the-ultimate-origin-of-our-universe-203674

[81] Physicists Debate Hawking's Idea That the Universe Had No ..., https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/

[82] Stephen Hawking's Objection To The Kalam Cosmological Argument, https://cerebralfaith.net/stephen-hawkings-objection-to-kala/

[83] Solving the Dispute: Criticism of Hartle-Hawking Model Explained, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/solving-the-dispute-criticism-of-hartle-hawking-model-explained.196222/

[84] Stephen Hawking and God | Reasonable Faith, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/stephen-hawking-and-god/

[85] Stephen Hawking and the universe creating itself from nothing - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhysics/comments/15hplfp/stephen_hawking_and_the_universe_creating_itself/

[86] What were some flaws in Stephen Hawking's theories? - Quora, https://www.quora.com/What-were-some-flaws-in-Stephen-Hawkings-theories

[87] No, Roger Penrose, We See No Evidence Of A 'Universe Before The ..., https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/10/08/no-roger-penrose-we-see-no-evidence-of-a-universe-before-the-big-bang/

[88] Conformal cyclic cosmology - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

[89] What was before the Big Bang: the theory of Roger Penrose, https://universemagazine.com/en/what-was-before-the-big-bang-the-theory-of-roger-penrose/

[90] Roger Penrose can't escape an ultimate explanation for the universe, https://www.premierunbelievable.com/topics/roger-penrose-cant-escape-an-ultimate-explanation-for-the-universe/11725.article

[91] Roger Penrose and Cosmology | Podcast - Reasonable Faith, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/roger-penrose-and-cosmology/

[92] Thoughts on Sir Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclical Cosmology ..., https://medium.com/physics-philosophy-more/thoughts-on-sir-roger-penroses-conformal-cyclical-cosmology-ccc-6203fd7af6ab

[93] Roger Penrose, the cyclical universe and philosophical pessimism, https://www.metaphysicalexile.com/2021/02/roger-penrose-cyclical-universe-and.html

[94] Roger Penrose model of the rebirthing universe - Physics Forums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/roger-penrose-model-of-the-rebirthing-universe.1054332/

[95] Amazing Big Bang Theory by Roger Penrose : r/cosmology - Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comments/1357zdw/amazing_big_bang_theory_by_roger_penrose/

[96] New Work on the BGV Theorem - Reasonable Faith, https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/new-work-on-the-bgv-theorem

[97] What is the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem? - Physics Forums, https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/what-is-the-borde-guth-vilenkin-theorem.934908/

[98] Borde–Guth–Vilenkin Theorem - Philosophyball Wiki - Miraheze, https://philosophyball.miraheze.org/wiki/Borde–Guth–Vilenkin_Theorem

[99] Is the Universe a quantum fluctuation? - Big Think, https://bigthink.com/13-8/universe-quantum-fluctuation/

[100] Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

[101] The Emergence of the Universe Through Quantum Fluctuations, https://medium.com/@kosmologi.indonesia/the-emergence-of-the-universe-through-quantum-fluctuations-9e331de0c53d

[102] cosmology - What is the difference between a quantum fluctuation ..., https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/394753/what-is-the-difference-between-a-quantum-fluctuation-and-a-singularity-in-the-be

[103] The Origins of the Universe: General open inflation, https://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/outreach/origins/inflation_four.php

[104] quantum field theory - How inflation creates a universe from nothing?, https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/486323/how-inflation-creates-a-universe-from-nothing

[105] Inflationary Cosmology: Exploring the Universe from the Smallest to ..., https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March05/Guth/Guth1.html

[106] Cosmic inflation - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation

[107] How can a quantum fluctuation create a universe? : r/cosmology, https://www.reddit.com/r/cosmology/comments/10rbq8i/how_can_a_quantum_fluctuation_create_a_universe/

Factfinder

@just_sayin

All the major cosmogonic models for how the universe originated have serious problems.

Thanks Captain obvious. What's your point? Silly god hypothesizes has a trillion more problems starting with imagination isn't reality. How's that elf god DNA coming? Zombie DNA? If you're point isn't "god did it" then I apologize. So what is your point then?

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

All the major cosmogonic models for how the universe originated have serious problems.

Thanks Captain obvious. What's your point? Silly god hypothesizes has a trillion more problems starting with imagination isn't reality. How's that elf god DNA coming? Zombie DNA? If you're point isn't "god did it" then I apologize. So what is your point then?

Look back over the debate.  You are always the one who brings up God and then goes on a rage when I respond to you.  If you want to talk only science, then do so.  It would be a nice change of pace for you to actually defend your beliefs for a change, instead of attacking other's faith.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

Look back over the debate.  You are always the one who brings up God

Well except for the fact you're lying again, well, you failed again. This is part your first response, early in the response...

because of the fine tuning issue.

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/198082/#Comment_198082

There is no "fine tunning issue" except in the minds delusional Christians and it refers to your god, "it did it". Is what you're saying or are you saying you don't believe it did it? Wish you had a brain?

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

Look back over the debate.  You are always the one who brings up God

Well except for the fact you're lying again, well, you're failed again. This is part your your first response, early in the response...

because of the fine tuning issue.

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/198082/#Comment_198082

There is no "fine tunning issue" except in the minds delusional Christians and it refers to your god, "it did it". Is what you're saying or are you saying you don't believe it did it? Wish you had a brain?

You are a teller of lies.

I am correct in my observation about why people support a multiverse scenario for the origin of the universe.  It certainly isn't because of the evidence for a multiverse.  Here is the question I asked my AI:

Is it true that much of the interest in a multiverse view of the origin of the universe is due not because of the evidence for a multiverse, but to explain the fine tuning of the universe?

Here is the answer:

The interest in the multiverse hypothesis as a framework for understanding the origin of the universe is indeed strongly tied to the challenge of fine-tuning, even though conclusive evidence for the existence of other universes remains elusive. This report will explore the relationship between the multiverse concept and fine-tuning, examining arguments and views from various physicists.

    Understanding Fine-Tuning

Fine-tuning refers to the observation that the fundamental constants and initial conditions of our universe appear to be precisely set within narrow ranges that allow for the existence of life. For instance, if the strength of the gravitational force were altered by even a small amount, stars and planets might not form, making life as we know it impossible. This precise adjustment of universal parameters raises the question of why our universe has them—and whether they could have emerged by chance or design.

    The Multiverse as an Explanation

The multiverse hypothesis suggests that our universe is just one of many, each with its own physical laws and constants. This notion provides a broader framework in which the fine-tuning of our universe can be understood as a statistical likelihood: if there are a vast number of universes, it would be expected that some would have the appropriate conditions for life, simply by chance. As noted, proponents argue that fine-tuning does not imply that our universe must be uniquely designed for life; instead, it could just be one instance within a multiverse where life-friendly conditions are relatively rare but not impossible.

    Philosophical Implications

The multiverse concept fundamentally alters the philosophical landscape surrounding fine-tuning. Some scientists and philosophers posit that the improbability of our universe's conditions points to the existence of many universes, which would inherently cover a wider array of possibilities—and thus make the conditions we observe today seem less extraordinary. However, this perspective has garnered criticism as well, with detractors arguing that the mere existence of other universes does not provide a causal explanation for the fine-tuning observed in our own universe.

    Critical Positions

Several critical arguments address the reliance on the multiverse to explain fine-tuning. For example, it can be argued that invoking a multiverse might be a way of sidestepping deeper questions about the nature of our universe. Critics assert that claiming a multiverse exists as a remedy for fine-tuning lacks empirical validation, reducing it to a speculative framework rather than a scientifically sound theory. Others argue that fine-tuning could be interpreted as support for a teleological explanation—that is, the universe may be designed or directed toward enabling life.

    Conclusion

The prevalent interest in multiverse theories largely stems from their capacity to address the profound questions raised by the phenomenon of fine-tuning. While this relationship does not imply solid evidence for a multiverse, it emphasizes an intellectual endeavor to reconcile our observations with theoretical physics. Thus, the interplay between the multiverse concept and fine-tuning is a prominent area of exploration, inviting ongoing debate about the implications of these ideas for our understanding of the universe and its origins. 

    Examining the motivations for multiverse theories highlights the complexity of the fine-tuning argument, showing that current scientific discourse is deeply rooted in both empirical findings and philosophical inquiry.

Sources: 

[1] 10 Reasons the Multiverse is a Real Possibility | HowStuffWorks, https://science.howstuffworks.com/10-reasons-multiverse-is-real-possibility.htm

[2] 5 Reasons We May Live in a Multiverse - Space.com, https://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html

[3] Why Serious Scientists Are Mesmerized by the Multiverse, https://www.universetoday.com/165242/why-serious-scientists-are-mesmerized-by-the-multiverse/

[4] What is the multiverse—and is there any evidence it really exists?, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/what-is-the-multiverse

[5] What is multiverse theory? | Live Science, https://www.livescience.com/multiverse

[6] Here's Why We Might Live in a Multiverse | Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-we-might-live-in-a-multiverse/

[7] The Real Science of the Multiverse - JSTOR Daily, https://daily.jstor.org/the-real-science-of-the-multiverse/

[8] The Science of the Multiverse, https://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/the-science-of-the-multiverse/

[9] What reasons make people believe the 'multiverse' concept? - Quora, https://www.quora.com/What-reasons-make-people-believe-the-multiverse-concept

[10] What is the logical basis behind the multiverse theory? In other ..., https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/310bhj/what_is_the_logical_basis_behind_the_multiverse/

[11] The Fine-Tuning Argument Against the Multiverse - Blog of the APA, https://blog.apaonline.org/2023/03/28/the-fine-tuning-argument-against-the-multiverse/

[12] Fine-Tuning - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fine-tuning/

[13] Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

[14] Why the Multiverse Can't Explain Fine-Tuning, https://conscienceandconsciousness.com/2022/06/08/why-the-multiverse-cant-explain-fine-tuning/

[15] The Fine-Tuning Argument: Exploring the Improbability of Our ..., https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-26300-7_6

[16] The fine-tuning argument against the multiverse - Oxford Academic, https://academic.oup.com/pq/advance-article/doi/10.1093/pq/pqae068/7697698

[17] Is the fine-tuning evidence for a multiverse? - PMC, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11189337/

[18] Cosmological Fine-Tuning Arguments: What (If Anything) Should We ..., https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/cosmological-fine-tuning-arguments-what-if-anything-should-we-infer-from-the-fine-tuning-of-our-universe-for-life-2/

[19] The Multiverse Theory Does Not Solve the Apparent Fine Tuning of ..., https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/zzlkol/the_multiverse_theory_does_not_solve_the_apparent/

[20] Is the fine-tuning evidence for a multiverse? | Synthese, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-024-04621-z

[21] What Is Fine Tuning? - John Templeton Foundation, https://www.templeton.org/news/what-is-fine-tuning

[22] Some Notes On “Fine-Tuning” And The Multiverse, https://latterdaysaintmag.com/some-notes-on-fine-tuning-and-the-multiverse/

[23] What Do "Fine-tuning" and the "Multiverse" Say About God?, https://biologos.org/common-questions/what-do-fine-tuning-and-the-multiverse-say-about-god

While the fine tuning of the universe may suggest an intelligence, it is your hatred of God, that made the God leap.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

You are a teller of lies.

I am correct in my observation about why people support a multiverse scenario for the origin of the universe. 
 
Yet another lie. When did I say you weren't correct about what others say? People say a wide range of things. You wouldn't look so stoopid if you just said what you believe and weren't scared to explain why.

While the fine tuning of the universe may suggest an intelligence, it is your hatred of God, that made the God leap.

So when you say "fine tuned" you don't think of your elf god at all? Yeah, you're busted again. Wish you had a brain? Maybe pray for one of those "millions" of miracles you fantasize are true and have god help you out, give you some DNA?

 

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@just_sayin

You are a teller of lies.

I am correct in my observation about why people support a multiverse scenario for the origin of the universe. 
 
Yet another lie. When did I say you weren't correct about what others say? People say a wide range of things. You wouldn't look so stoopid if you just said what you believe and weren't scared to explain why.

While the fine tuning of the universe may suggest an intelligence, it is your hatred of God, that made the God leap.

So when you say "fine tuned" you don't think of your elf god at all? Yeah, you're busted again. Wish you had a brain? Maybe pray for one of those "millions" of miracles you fantasize are true and have god help you out, give you some DNA?

 

God hater, your hatred for God is too great for you to even discuss the topic of your own debate - the multiverse.  Get help, buddy.

You miss the obvious - The observation that the main reason people argue for  the need of a multiverse is  to explain fine-tuning. This suggests an acceptance of fine-tuning as extraordinary within our universe. Yet, you have repeatedly denied that the universe appears finely-tuned.  

Factfinder

@just_sayin

God hater, your hatred for God is too great for you to even discuss the topic of your own debate - the multiverse.  Get help, buddy.

Once again, no one can hate a fictious being, it's your stupidity I hate. Your first response focused on the fine tuning element as if scientists were concluding an intelligence. Or you're throwing your god under the bus again. Which is it? First talk of a god, then lead to your god, that's the agenda, right? If you love Christ why do you lie and can't explain your faith? Seek help. 

You miss the obvious - The observation that the main reason people argue for  the need of a multiverse is  to explain fine-tuning. This suggests an acceptance of fine-tuning as extraordinary within our universe. Yet, you have repeatedly denied that the universe appears finely-tuned. 

That's what you tell yourself and so you only seek information you ignorantly think supports you. There is no "fine tuning" at the forefront of multiverse research, it's a combination of several different hypothesizes in order to discover new knowledge, not affirm preconceived notions. "Fine tuning" relating to space in cosmology is a reference to the physical constants that made life possible at least once, here. If that's all you meant, then when I called you out why did you say, "The proposition that God created the universe is more probable than naturalistic explanations, based on several philosophical and scientific considerations: And this: The God hypothesis provides greater explanatory power than naturalistic alternatives.? Why didn't you try the line of bull you're trying now, then? Instead you defended what you meant and now you're trying to say I brought your god up. You truly are a piece of work. If you love Christ, why lie and cower from explaining your fairytale belief in your own words? Ask the proper objective question, get the proper objective answer...


ChatGPT:

Why is multiverse hypothesized?

ChatGPT said:

The idea of the multiverse, a collection of multiple or even infinite universes, is hypothesized because it arises naturally from certain interpretations of theoretical physics and cosmology. Here are the main reasons why scientists have proposed the multiverse concept:

---

1. Cosmic Inflation Theory

• Explanation: The theory of inflation suggests that the early universe expanded exponentially fast, smoothing out irregularities and leading to the universe we observe today. In some models of inflation, this process never fully stops but continues in different regions, creating "pocket universes" within an overarching multiverse. Each pocket universe may have its own physical constants and properties.
• Implication: Our universe could be just one of many in a larger "inflationary multiverse."

---

2. Quantum Mechanics and the Many-Worlds Interpretation

• Explanation: In quantum mechanics, the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) posits that every quantum event with multiple possible outcomes leads to the splitting of the universe into parallel branches, with each branch realizing one outcome.
• Implication: This suggests a vast number of universes branching out continuously.

---

3. String Theory Landscape

• Explanation: String theory, which attempts to unify all fundamental forces, predicts a vast number of possible solutions (around 1050010^{500}10500) for the physical laws of the universe, known as the "landscape." Each solution corresponds to a universe with unique physical properties.
• Implication: The multiverse provides a framework for why our universe has its particular laws and constants—ours might simply be one of many.

---

4. Anthropic Principle

• Explanation: The fine-tuning of physical constants in our universe makes it suitable for life. In a multiverse, the existence of countless universes with varying properties could explain why we observe a universe seemingly "designed" for life.
• Implication: We exist in a universe compatible with life simply because it’s the one we can observe.

---

5. Cosmic Observations and Open Questions

• Explanation: Observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and other phenomena hint at structures or events beyond our observable universe. Additionally, certain mathematical and physical theories are more coherent when they allow for multiple universes.
• Implication: The multiverse provides a context for addressing puzzles like the "horizon problem" and the apparent vastness of spacetime.

---

6. Limitations of the Observable Universe

• Explanation: The observable universe is just a small fraction of the entire universe (if the latter is infinite). If the universe extends infinitely or has different regions separated causally, it might host varied conditions or "bubble universes."
• Implication: These disconnected regions might essentially function as separate universes.

---

Challenges and Criticisms

• The multiverse hypothesis is difficult to test experimentally, leading some critics to question whether it qualifies as science.
• Some physicists argue that invoking a multiverse shifts the problem of fine-tuning without truly resolving it.

---

The multiverse concept is compelling because it offers solutions to some of the deepest questions about reality, but it remains a speculative and controversial idea. Further advancements in physics and cosmology are needed to assess its validity.

MayCaesar

When a modern man does not know whether it is going to rain tomorrow, he looks at the data and makes the best prediction possible.

When an ancient shaman does not know whether it is going to rain tomorrow, he starts dancing and chanting calling for gods to induce the rain.

This is pretty much the essence of the difference between science and religion. One is about dealing with facts; another is about dealing with psychedelic mushrooms.

polytheistwitch

Wow your knowledge is shamanism is outstanding. ????

Joeseph

@polytheistwitch

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hey Poly

@polytheistwitch

Shamanism often involves hallucinogenic substances.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: It's a fact.

@Factfinder

The GOD principle is the answer.

It's just that in a lot of heads GOD is always a magician with a beard.

I would suggest that the magician with the beard is an analogy, rather than the real deal, and that in terms of resolving existence, neither you nor I nor quantum physicists have a clue.

But it's fun to chat about it, like we actually know what's what.

polytheistwitch

Another genius on shamanism. 

Joeseph

@polytheistwitch

Another genius on shamanism. 

You mean another person with an opinion on nonsense

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hey Poly.

@polytheistwitch


Shaman simply perform a service for the gullible.

And if it makes them feel good, then all is good.

Which is not to say that within it's social context the service is not taken seriously.

And for sure, stimulating the mind can have positive outcomes.


And I didn't say always.

I said often.

Which isn't a deniable fact.


So, perhaps you could write a thesis on global and historical shamanism.

Whereas I couldn't.

Such is how we place importance or not upon certain data.

And therefore, such is how it might affect us.

just_sayin

@Factfinder
I don't mind debating your AI.  It makes better arguments and isn't so fixated on hating God.

1. Cosmic Inflation Theory

• Explanation: The theory of inflation suggests that the early universe expanded exponentially fast, smoothing out irregularities and leading to the universe we observe today. In some models of inflation, this process never fully stops but continues in different regions, creating "pocket universes" within an overarching multiverse. Each pocket universe may have its own physical constants and properties.
• Implication: Our universe could be just one of many in a larger "inflationary multiverse."

Eternal Inflationary scenarios violate the BGV theorem.  A universe or multiverse that has been on average expanding can not be past eternal but must have a beginning.  And since the guy who angrily typed the key strokes to get  your answer doesn't believe in fine tuning, AI, know that any 'machine' that can eternally create multiverses must be infinitely more fined tuned than our own universe.

2. Quantum Mechanics and the Many-Worlds Interpretation

• Explanation: In quantum mechanics, the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) posits that every quantum event with multiple possible outcomes leads to the splitting of the universe into parallel branches, with each branch realizing one outcome.
• Implication: This suggests a vast number of universes branching out continuously.

And the evidence is?  The collapse in the wave function always results in 1 outcome.  That's what billions of experiments have shown.  If there exists a universe where @Factfinder doesn't hate God, I'd love to see evidence for it.

3. String Theory Landscape

• Explanation: String theory, which attempts to unify all fundamental forces, predicts a vast number of possible solutions (around 1050010^{500}10500) for the physical laws of the universe, known as the "landscape." Each solution corresponds to a universe with unique physical properties.
• Implication: The multiverse provides a framework for why our universe has its particular laws and constants—ours might simply be one of many.

The vast number of possible physical laws of the universe that are possible is evidence for fine tuning.  To say that each possible outcome corresponds to an actual universe though is science fiction.  There is no evidence for this.

String theory's prediction of 10, or 11, dimensions, suggests that there is something beyond our universe.  There is no physical evidence for this, but it would explain how someone who is outside of our dimensional perception could create a universe and at the same time perceive it's entire history simultaneously.  just sayin

4. Anthropic Principle

• Explanation: The fine-tuning of physical constants in our universe makes it suitable for life. In a multiverse, the existence of countless universes with varying properties could explain why we observe a universe seemingly "designed" for life.
• Implication: We exist in a universe compatible with life simply because it’s the one we can observe.

The anthropic principle observes the fine tuning of our universe and to minimize the infinitesimal odds of it seeks to claim a multiverse without any physical evidence.  

5. Cosmic Observations and Open Questions

• Explanation: Observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and other phenomena hint at structures or events beyond our observable universe. Additionally, certain mathematical and physical theories are more coherent when they allow for multiple universes.
• Implication: The multiverse provides a context for addressing puzzles like the "horizon problem" and the apparent vastness of spacetime.

Your video was about this.  By CMB they are principally referring to the so called 'cold spot'.  It has lots more plausible naturalistic explanations.  The issue of the vastness of spacetime is in reality more of an argument for an intelligent cause, because from a strict statistical perspective, it's much more likely  to be observing a much smaller universe, no bigger than the size of our solar system, because of the need to have so much energy in a concentrated area.  Things tend to spread out rather than gather together.  A universe of our size is astronomically low, if you are talking about probabilities - again it depends some based on which cosmogonic model we are talking about.

6. Limitations of the Observable Universe

• Explanation: The observable universe is just a small fraction of the entire universe (if the latter is infinite). If the universe extends infinitely or has different regions separated causally, it might host varied conditions or "bubble universes."
• Implication: These disconnected regions might essentially function as separate universes.

This goes against big bang cosmology which emphasizes that the rate of expansion of our universe is due to inflation and predicts that our universe began to exist at the big bang.  If multiverses exist within our space, even as bubble universes, we should observe a much different universe that does not appear to be a relatively young one (yes, 14.8 billion is relatively young when talking about eternity), where many universes have coalesced or their radiation has escaped their bubbles.  We should be able to observe these multiverses. 

Challenges and Criticisms

• The multiverse hypothesis is difficult to test experimentally, leading some critics to question whether it qualifies as science.
• Some physicists argue that invoking a multiverse shifts the problem of fine-tuning without truly resolving it.

Yep, it is true science of the gaps stuff.  

Factfinder

@Fredsnephew

The GOD principle is the answer.

Such as the god particle? I agree that appears to offer some answers, but not in the way Just_lyin means when he speaks of such things. He expects to lead people with speculative conjecture to conclude it ultimately must be his god as his argumentation deteriorated to once he was called out on it.

It's just that in a lot of heads GOD is always a magician with a beard.

Which would be the end game the average Christian would have on debate sites such as this. A magician with a beard. Jusy_Lyin admits freely he's here for apologetics, not debate. There is a difference between the two. Though he'd claim apologetics is a form of debate I'm sure. Anyway that and the fact Just_lyin uses AI as if it gives his views credibility while refusing to spell out his views clearly in his own words and answer questions directly, again in his own words is why I give him no leeway.

I would suggest that the magician with the beard is an analogy, rather than the real deal, and that in terms of resolving existence, neither you nor I nor quantum physicists have a clue.

And I would be inclined to agree.

But it's fun to chat about it, like we actually know what's what.

Yes it is. Like the possibility conditions in the event horizon of a black hole could produce an "observer effect" similar to that of turning on a detector in a lab to record particle behavior in a double slit experiment. Thus suggesting black holes aren't completely black and devoid of mass but rather like tiny a regenerative state undetectable as of yet. Red shift from older galaxies found with the webb telescope leads to possibly an older universe than we presently believe. And more of them.  Schrodinger's Galaxy Candidate is what it's called and referred to. Fascinating stuff. And some day we may find out we still never had a clue and have gotten it all wrong. As you said, all speculative at this point. LOL.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

I don't mind debating your AI.  It makes better arguments and isn't so fixated on hating God.

Yet you're the one who lies and pretends that I hate god which isn't possible every time you're debunked.

Eternal Inflationary scenarios violate the BGV theorem.  A universe or multiverse that has been on average expanding can not be past eternal but must have a beginning.  And since the guy who angrily typed the key strokes to get  your answer doesn't believe in fine tuning, AI, know that any 'machine' that can eternally create multiverses must be infinitely more fined tuned than our own universe.

A beginning as our current understanding goes. And multiverse theory doesn't claim infinite regression in anyway, that's just another strawman you present. Indeed if you'd had bothered to watch the video you would have known their position was that even if they were right everything would still be tied to us in this universe as even then there is no infinite past, the first universe would still be the beginning. As you fail to debate the AI answer; you attack the "guy who angrily typed the keystrokes" instead. Funny how that which threatens your narrative of your beliefs are always perceived by you as "angerly" opposing your faith. FYI, the fine tuned argument has been debunked thoroughly.  https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/20661

And the evidence is?  The collapse in the wave function always results in 1 outcome.  That's what billions of experiments have shown.  If there exists a universe where @Factfinder doesn't hate God, I'd love to see evidence for it.

The evidence is you're living in a universe where I don't hate god. It hasn't been established to exist as of yet. Maybe one day but 0 evidence of it today; and for the record; this is you bringing up your god again before you blame me with another unprovoked attack on your part.

Your video was about this.  By CMB they are principally referring to the so called 'cold spot'.  It has lots more plausible naturalistic explanations.  The issue of the vastness of spacetime is in reality more of an argument for an intelligent cause, because from a strict statistical perspective, it's much more likely  to be observing a much smaller universe, no bigger than the size of our solar system, because of the need to have so much energy in a concentrated area.  Things tend to spread out rather than gather together.  A universe of our size is astronomically low, if you are talking about probabilities - again it depends some based on which cosmogonic model we are talking about.

That is what I'm talking about, possibilities and probabilities though it's simply your own interpretation whether hypothesizes argue "for" or "against" an intelligence. You attach that significance or lack there of. I just find it all interesting and don't know what it means as far conclusive, final answers that may be indicated if we ever do find out. CEERS-1749 has the potential to turn cosmology theory upside down is the whole point of the video.

This goes against big bang cosmology which emphasizes that the rate of expansion of our universe is due to inflation and predicts that our universe began to exist at the big bang.  If multiverses exist within our space, even as bubble universes, we should observe a much different universe that does not appear to be a relatively young one (yes, 14.8 billion is relatively young when talking about eternity), where many universes have coalesced or their radiation has escaped their bubbles.  We should be able to observe these multiverses. 

How would we observe them if their light hasn't reached us yet or if it's possible their light never will? We don't even have the ability to see our entire universe, only the observable universe. And that's done by calculating light images. Do you think the point where we simply can't see is just darkness? I don't, I think it could be that the light hasn't reached us yet and we haven't developed the equipment to see beyond the observable universe at this time. That seems more logical.

Yep, it is true science of the gaps stuff.  

With science the "gap" of unknowns shrink while your "god of the gaps" postulation has never in history produced an answer. While science gave us these devices we use right now in debating; religion is still trying to figure out if the universe is 6000 years old or not and which came first, the sun or the earth and all its vegetation?

Factfinder

@maxx

aside from my reply to fred, there is another strange idea that you may look at.   https://www.sciencealert.com/wildly-fun-new-paper-compares-the-human-brain-to-the-structure-of-the-universe ;

Very interesting concepts indeed. I believe that (what you mentioned to Fred) was the inspiration for the show "quantum Leap" back in the late eighties, early nineties. 

I have noticed in the past the similarities between images of brain neurons and galaxies too. In fact I read somewhere where scientists are hypothesizing that we can learn about our brains by studying space and vice versa. We might know more about space if we understood our own brains better. All fun to speculate.

Factfinder

Argument Topic: Rewriting science books?

I love this stuff...

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1058663219196270

MayCaesar

polytheistwitch said:

Wow your knowledge is shamanism is outstanding. ????

It is: I studied ancient tribal societies a lot. Shamans actually were onto something: unlike the people who blindly followed them, they were able to discern certain weather patterns, and their rituals were placed very strategically. They did not exactly deceive their tribesmen, but they saw far beyond what they were letting out.

So even shamans, the religious authorities at the time, knew better than to assume that gods gave much of a fudge about them. Too bad that in 10,000 years people's thinking has degraded...

polytheistwitch

LOL Shamanism isn't a religion there doesn't have to be any god related to it. And even people today know that. A lot of people that get involved in shamanism do so because they don't want to be involved in a religion. So believe it or not they're actually people who understand the way it works not just you atheist who think you know everything. And there's a lot more to it than just the weather.

Factfinder

polytheistwitch said:

LOL Shamanism isn't a religion there doesn't have to be any god related to it. And even people today know that. A lot of people that get involved in shamanism do so because they don't want to be involved in a religion. So believe it or not they're actually people who understand the way it works not just you atheist who think you know everything. And there's a lot more to it than just the weather.

And what does this have to do with the topic?

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: LOL Poly

@polytheistwitch

In short, shamanism is/was a belief system, based upon the notion of a non-worldly existence. Such beliefs were/are usually accompanied with ritual practices.

Religion in other words, though not todays more mainstream stuff.

polytheistwitch

Ritual isn't religion. 

Joeseph

@polytheistwitch

Poly needs to look up the definition of Shamanism it seems...


Shamanism has been regarded as one of the world's oldest religions as well as one of its newest; evidence of shamanic practice has been found in Paleolithic cave art, and shamanic experiences are being cultivated in contemporary societies, especially in its “New Age” or neoshamanism variations

MayCaesar

polytheistwitch said:

LOL Shamanism isn't a religion there doesn't have to be any god related to it. And even people today know that. A lot of people that get involved in shamanism do so because they don't want to be involved in a religion. So believe it or not they're actually people who understand the way it works not just you atheist who think you know everything. And there's a lot more to it than just the weather.

Shamanism far predates formal religion. There is a consensus among historians that modern religion has its roots in shamanism. And if you were a little more literate, you would find that I said exactly that: that shamans understand quite a lot about how the world works.

Your second to the last sentence I found quite ironic... Atheists are the people who say "I do not know" when they do not know. How is that thinking one knows everything? Maybe, it is the other way around, and it is the theists inventing gods and writing fantasy stories about them who pretend to know something they cannot possibly know even if it happens to be true?

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Hey Poly

@polytheistwitch

Give me an example of a religion without ritual.

marke

@maxx
God gives us clues about the possibility of multiple universes, whatever that is supposed to entail.

Nehemiah 9:6

Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

Fredsnephew

Argument Topic: Yep.

marke said:

@maxx
God gives us clues about the possibility of multiple universes, whatever that is supposed to entail.

Nehemiah 9:6

Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

@marke

Nehemiah didn't have a clue either.