Intelligent Design and the Multiverse

Intelligent Design and the Multiverse

There are 113 comments on the Examiner.com story from Apr 8, 2014, titled Intelligent Design and the Multiverse. In it, Examiner.com reports that:

Unfortunately at the opposite end of the science and religion spectrum from our Intelligent Design proponents lay another group of people with preconceived notions of their own.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#1 Apr 13, 2014
On one hand, the multiverse does look like an easy way out in explaining the fine tuning of the universe that enabled complex chemistry and life.

On the other, it appears to arise as a possibility from the physics, though I do not understand it well enough to support that claim or debunk it.

It seems that to the rational skeptic, lacking good physical evidence for the multiverse means that it sits in the same category as musings about God. So beyond the BB, "God vs multiverse" is pure speculation concerning two potential explanations, neither of which we have evidence for, and the honest answer should simply be, "we don't know".

But, as usual, turning "we don't know if there is a multiverse" into a practical program for finding out seems to be an opportunity open only to the scientists. On top of that, very few in the "God camp" seem to be able to detach notions of God from their own parochial belief systems concerning the supposed nature of God.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#2 Apr 13, 2014
I definitely think the 'hostility' attributed to some scientists at the possibility of the universe (or multiverse) being designed or any religious/supernatural concepts existing at all is greatly exaggerated. They are hostile to religious or supernatural beliefs interfering with or replacing honest scientific endeavors and that seems to be misinterpreted as a hostility to all religious beliefs. Now there are individuals like Dawkins who do exhibit greater antipathy towards religion and that is his personal, philosophical beliefs. They don't reflect other scientists or science in general.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#3 Apr 30, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
On one hand, the multiverse does look like an easy way out in explaining the fine tuning of the universe that enabled complex chemistry and life.
But of course. It was created for that purpose.

On top of that, believers in progressive evolution seem to be in love with their own parochial belief systems concerning the deification of natural selection.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#4 May 1, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> But of course. It was created for that purpose.
On top of that, believers in progressive evolution seem to be in love with their own parochial belief systems concerning the deification of natural selection.
Shaddap Shoob, ya crank.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#5 May 1, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> But of course. It was created for that purpose.
On top of that, believers in progressive evolution seem to be in love with their own parochial belief systems concerning the deification of natural selection.
Pity your brain is so addled with the notion of Deity that you see everything through this fog.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#6 May 1, 2014
There is more than one 'style' of multi-verse in physics.

One type comes about from the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics. It is found that the basic formulas of QM say that the universe will 'split' on each quantum event, with different self-contained, non-interacting 'pieces' each with a different version of that event. This version of multi-verses is more of an interpretation of QM than anything else, but it is useful when discussing things like decoherence and the origin of the classical world out of the quantum world. This has nothing whatsoever to do with fine tuning, but the way. The whole tree of splittings is then called a multi-verse with our universe just one branch of this tree.

Another type comes from attempts to unify quantum mechanics and gravity. String theory (itself in some difficulty right now) is a typical example of this. Most, if not all, versions of quantum gravity require extra dimensions for consistency. because of that, our universe becomes a small part of a larger whole, often with other areas with similar characteristics to our universe. Is is typical in these theories for the different parts to interact only through gravity (and not, say electromagnetism) so they would potentially have experimental consequences, but ones that would be incredibly hard to measure and be sure of. In this context, the large multi-dimensional space is often called a multi-verse.

Next, another type of multi-verse simply takes a single, but infinite, expanding universe and realizes that different pieces won't interact because there hasn't been enough time since the beginning for light to travel between them. That allows for the possibility that the different regions have very different properties, even different values for basic constants. Each smaller region can then reasonably be called a universe and the larger whole a multi-verse. Since the different pieces don't interact causally, this would be an incredibly hard theory to show to be correct.

Finally, there are theories that are mixtures of the last two: higher dimensional expanding structures with different properties in different regions and with much smaller, lower dimensional universe inside. Again, these tend to be difficult to imagine testing.

So there are two main problems with all of these: they tend to be difficult or impossible to test, at least in their conclusions about the existence of other universes. On the other hand, they are all based on fairly reasonable interpretations or extensions of known physical laws. And so at least *parts* of these theories *could* be tested, even if the existence of other universes cannot.

The problem is that nothing we have been able to construct actually probes the conditions that are testable in any of these ideas. SO, at this point, they are all (except to some extent the Everett interpretation) pure speculation.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#7 May 1, 2014
My personal view is that all of the muli-verse theories should be taken with a quite large grain of salt. To the extent they can be tested, they have not yet been tested (even the LHC cannot probe the energies required). So they may be fun to think about and perhaps give insight into quantum gravity, they do not have nearly the same confidence level as the overall Big Bang scenario.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#8 May 1, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
Pity your brain is so addled with the notion of Deity that you see everything through this fog.
Why can't you see that Charles Darwin literally deified natural selection? Is your vision obscured by the same fog?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#9 May 1, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> Why can't you see that Charles Darwin literally deified natural selection? Is your vision obscured by the same fog?
You're anidiot.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#10 May 1, 2014
The Dude wrote:
You're anidiot.
Pretended anger by an unthinking machine doesn't impress anyone.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#11 May 1, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> Pretended anger by an unthinking machine doesn't impress anyone.
He wasn't angry. That was an observation not an outburst.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#12 May 1, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
He wasn't angry. That was an observation not an outburst.
Observations by unthinking machines that have been programmed to serve their masters shouldn't be believed.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#13 May 1, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> Observations by unthinking machines that have been programmed to serve their masters shouldn't be believed.
I'm an autonomous organism capable of critical thinking. You're a malfunctioning droid whose operating system has reached critical mass.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#14 May 1, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm an autonomous organism capable of critical thinking.
There is simply no evidence of that.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#15 May 2, 2014
Sure there is. The fact we've presented information you're unable to refute. Spam and ad-hom is all you've got left now. (shrug)

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#16 May 2, 2014
The Dude wrote:
The fact we've presented information you're unable to refute.
There is simply no evidence of that.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#17 May 2, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> There is simply no evidence of that.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

So tell me, what makes you so brilliant?

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#18 May 2, 2014
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
So tell me, what makes you so brilliant?
I think it is his copious use of hemorrhoid medication.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#19 May 4, 2014
Zog Has-fallen wrote:
<quoted text> Why can't you see that Charles Darwin literally deified natural selection?
You might as well be claiming that Franklin deified electricity by claiming it, and not Thor, was responsible for lightning.

Since: Feb 14

Location hidden

#20 May 4, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You might as well be claiming that Franklin deified electricity by claiming it, and not Thor, was responsible for lightning.
Do you also deny that Charles Darwin believed in progressive evolution?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 min DanFromSmithville 199,554
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min DanFromSmithville 35,584
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 22 min Kenedy njoroge 151,383
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr ChristineM 15,025
Complex Systems May Evolve More Slowly - Calcul... 17 hr Creationtruth 3
Evolution is merely a subroutine 18 hr Creationtruth 1
My Story Part 1 19 hr Regolith Based Li... 3
More from around the web