Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Brian Cox mentioned one type of multiverse: one that is so far away from ours that its light hasn't reached us yet. It isn't necessarily in some alternate reality.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
First cause of the universe.
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
This is your earlier post, Wildswanderer.
This is just more misunderstanding.
Have you bother to actually look up the Big Bang from reliable sources?
Others have already corrected you that this is not what BB model say, but you won't learn from your mistakes.
Let's get two things straight.
No where in the Big Bang model does it say that "something" or "everything" come from "nothing". No where do the theory says "nothing" exist.
That's a common mistake people make, when they make false assumptions about things because of -
Now you repeating the same mistakes again.
But when some members have already corrected your mistakes, and have explained repeatedly where you went wrong, this is no longer ignorance.
No. This time, you should have known better than your earlier post; this time, it’s you using strawman argument.
You haven’t learned from your errors, repeating the same false claims as before.
No BB cosmologists say that “everything” or “something” were created from nothing.
When you repeat the BS from creationist websites, all you are doing is circulating the creationist dishonest propaganda, without ever learning what the Big Bang model is saying.
What you have wrote are the same or similar things creationists would write. No BB cosmologists or astrophysicists are saying that. Hence, you keep making false claims about the Big Bang cosmology.
How about doing some research on more reliable scientific sources? Or at the very least, ask questions on things that you certainly don’t have expertise in.
I wished @Meow Mix was here to explain things about the Big Bang model to you, but @Polymath257 have done great job on this topic as well other theoretical models (eg more recently on Multiverse).
This is just more misunderstanding.
Have you bother to actually look up the Big Bang from reliable sources?
Others have already corrected you that this is not what BB model say, but you won't learn from your mistakes.
Let's get two things straight.
No where in the Big Bang model does it say that "something" or "everything" come from "nothing". No where do the theory says "nothing" exist.
That's a common mistake people make, when they make false assumptions about things because of -
- ...they did not read it from reliable sources,
- ...they don't understand what they are reading.
Now you repeating the same mistakes again.
But when some members have already corrected your mistakes, and have explained repeatedly where you went wrong, this is no longer ignorance.
No. This time, you should have known better than your earlier post; this time, it’s you using strawman argument.
You haven’t learned from your errors, repeating the same false claims as before.
No BB cosmologists say that “everything” or “something” were created from nothing.
When you repeat the BS from creationist websites, all you are doing is circulating the creationist dishonest propaganda, without ever learning what the Big Bang model is saying.
What you have wrote are the same or similar things creationists would write. No BB cosmologists or astrophysicists are saying that. Hence, you keep making false claims about the Big Bang cosmology.
How about doing some research on more reliable scientific sources? Or at the very least, ask questions on things that you certainly don’t have expertise in.
I wished @Meow Mix was here to explain things about the Big Bang model to you, but @Polymath257 have done great job on this topic as well other theoretical models (eg more recently on Multiverse).
gnostic
The Lost One
This don’t make sense.
Some aspects of astrophysics are “experimental” astrophysics, but some other aspects of astrophysics are “theoretical” astrophysics.
Experimental models are scientific theories that have been “TESTED” and “VERIFIED”, meaning the explanations and predictions are supported by “OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE”.
Theoretical models are proposed logical or mathematical solutions.
Some theoretical models do end up being tested scientific theories, while others are untested, or eventually tested but refuted.
While I would agree with you that Multiverse is untested, Multiverse do use some fields in physics to arrive at their concepts or solutions, for examples they used General Relativity, Quantum Field Physics, Particle Physics, etc. So physicists often used some scientific theories to aid them with finding solutions.
It isn't my definition, it's the dictionary definition. I believe by definition the Universe is all that exists, you disagree. I think perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this one.
I said you don't have to be an astrophysics to know the multiverse is not based on scientific theory; nothing you've said here refutes what I said.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Here is a dictionary definition of religion as per Google: the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
Here is an academic one: religion | Definition, Types, List of Religions, Symbols, Examples, & Facts
I can find other ones as academic. Which one is right one? Have you learned something?
More importantly, my definition is the one commonly used by those studying cosmology.
Definitions are a *convention*. Words can change in meaning over time. In this case, that has happened.
Ultimately, there is no right or wrong definition: there are useful definitions and useless definitions. And there are those that are accepted by those using the word and those definitions that are not.
Because definitions are conventions, sometimes people use the same word with different meanings (look in any dictionary for many examples). As long as people agree to use the same definition, no confusion arises. But if there is no agreement on definitions, then debate becomes more and more difficult.
If you are reading about cosmology, especially in an article that discusses the possibility of a multiverse, your definition of 'universe' will cause confusion. And yes, a multiverse is a seriously considered possibility by scientists.
But it is false: multiverse scenarios *are* parts of scientific theories. They are based on attempting to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. Those are, again, scientific theories. So what you state is wrong. Multiverse theories are based on scientific theories.
Funny: here's the dictionary definition I found: Definition of UNIVERSE
Definition of universe
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated : cosmos: such as
a : a systematic whole held to arise by and persist through the direct intervention of divine power
b : the world of human experience
c(1) : the entire celestial cosmos
(2) : milky way galaxy
(3) : an aggregate of stars comparable to the Milky Way galaxy
2 : a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed system or self-inclusive and independent organization
3 : population sense 4
4 : a set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or problem
5 : a great number or quantity a large enough universe of stocks … to choose from— G. B. Clairmont
Examples of the use of this word is given by the sentences:
How many stars are there in the universe?
It means more to me than anything else in the entire universe.
She is convinced that parallel universes exist.
He creates his own universe in his novels.
New York City is the center of the publishing universe.
In regards to our discussion, the third sentence is particularly relevant. It shows that it is a correct use to say that there can be more than one universe.
I would also direct you to the Wikipedia page on the universe: Universe - Wikipedia.
it has a nice description of scientific multiverse models.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah. Thank you. I use 1 b: the world of human experience.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Just like the so called science papers that are based on ideas that can't be proven?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Too many unknowns to make that claim.
Do hidden properties determine the outcomes, so that they only appear random to us?
Which just tells us science is a very incomplete system of knowledge.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Seriously? Why would you think time didn't have a beginning?
Again look up the science on this and it's all opinion. No one really knows.
It's been debated for thosands of years and probably will continue to be debated for thousands more.
The current opinions on it aren't that important, but they seem to reflect a desire to kick God out of the equation by supposing the universe just always was somehow. How? We don't know. Did time start with the BB? We don't know.
Multiple universes? We don't know. And they don't solve the question of why they exist.
But we do know everything we see has a prior cause. So the universe or fantasy multiple universes should too.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You were the one that says there is no such thing as an uncaused cause. He named one that you could not refute. You do not get to say "well there could have been a cause" . If you want to maintain your earlier claim the burden of poof is now upon you.
Until then the correct phrase is "we do not know if there can be an uncaused cause". You in effect just refuted your earlier argument.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
He didn't show one because we don't know that it's uncaused... he has no evidence that it is.
There is a difference between those ideas that cannot be proven NOW and those that can't be tested EVER.
If it is realized that there is no way to test a proposal, it gets dropped by most scientists as uninteresting.
This is actually one of the BIG issues with string theory. It is going out of favor in part because it seems not to be testable (although this is still debatable). It is also one of the reasons multiverse scenarios are regarded skeptically and their overall acceptance will be based on just how testable they (or their overall theory) are.
Actually, there is a lot of good evidence that quantum effects are uncaused in any classical sense.
of course, to some extent it depends on exactly what you mean when you say something is caused.
But quantum events are random: they are not determined by previous conditions. Only the probability of various outcomes is determined. By most classical definitions of causality, that makes quantum events uncaused.
No. Unless other laws of physics are being broken, that is NOT one of the possibilities.
Actual observations have eliminated local hidden variable theories. And locality is required for consistency with relativity.
It is certainly incomplete, no surprise there. but one of the things we do know is that hidden variable theories cannot explain what we have actually observed.
Well, it depends a bit on what you mean by the the phrase 'had a beginning'.
There was nothing before there was time. So even if time goes only finitely far into the past, there is no 'beginning' in the sense of it being caused.
Much less so than anything in religion. That is ALL opinion with no supporting evidence. At least science supports its ideas with observation.
Perhaps, but our understanding of time has changed dramatically in the last century or so. And that is partly because we have been able to make observations impossible not too long ago.
No, it isn't a desire to eliminate God. It is a realization that invoking deities doesn't actually explain anything.
And religions leave out any explanation of why God exists. The difference is that science is supported by evidence and religions are not.
No, we do not know any such thing. of course, part of the issue is what you mean by the term 'cause'. The notion is a lot more subtle than many people seem to think.
Why would that be necessary? The universe as a whole need not have the same properties as things inside the universe.
gnostic
The Lost One
I am not disputing you that Multiverse (MV) itself is untested and therefore Multiverse itself isn’t a “scientific theory”.
But what you said earlier...
“...the idea of Multiverse is not supported by scientific theory.”
...that’s not true.
It is the way you had worded your sentence that’s not true. Contextually it is wrong.
Parts of Multiverse (MV) being used to construct the MV model come from a number of different tested scientific theories, examples:
- General Relativity (GR)
- Quantum Mechanics (QM)
- Quantum Field Theory (QFT)
- the Standard Model of Particle Physics (PP)
Even though Big Bang model is a scientific theory, parts that build this theory come from General Relativity, and GR is the main framework to the BB, but there other theories that helped to build BB up.
How you worded your sentence - “the idea of Multiverse is not supported by scientific theory” - is technically and literally wrong.
Last edited: