Problems & confusion with the Multiverse

[YoursTrue]

I do not think you will ever do that. It is an abomination as far as faith is concerned. Martin Luther clearly said so.

I hate to say this but what you're saying is beyond reason. Go look at Einstein's theories again...even he said in a manner of speaking as he was dying that he had enough. I guess he was not a real happy philosopher...

 

[gnostic]

ok, so I'll have to be aware of the context. Thanks!

Of course, you do.

You have to recognize what words, sentences or paragraphs being used, to make communication understandable. This thread should be about the universe's cosmology, like the theoretical Multiverse, so it should all be the subjects of physics, astrophysics, astronomy and cosmology.

And yet we continued to get sidetracked about life, biology, evolution, abiogenesis, and Genesis creation. These have nothing to Multiverse.

 

[YoursTrue]

Of course, you do.

You have to recognize what words, sentences or paragraphs being used, to make communication understandable. This thread should be about the universe's cosmology, like the theoretical Multiverse, so it should all be the subjects of physics, astrophysics, astronomy and cosmology.

And yet we continued to get sidetracked about life, biology, evolution, abiogenesis, and Genesis creation. These have nothing to Multiverse.

OK, well I'm not trying to compete with Einstein and other more brilliant people that are on these boards.

 

[gnostic]

OK, well I'm not trying to compete with Einstein and other more brilliant people that are on these boards.

I am not brilliant by any measure...I am still learning, and along the way, I still make plenty of mistakes.

But the question is, whether I can learn from my mistakes or not. And I think I can mostly can.

But I have seen many creationists, here and elsewhere, keep repeating the same errors over and over again, refusing to recognize their errors, and refusing to learn from their errors.

How many times, have I explain to you (and other creationists here), that proofs are not requirements of any scientific researches?

Evidence are important, because they provide information (data, such as quantities or measurements) about the OBSERVED physical or natural phenomena.

Proofs are just proposed abstract solutions, often expressed in the forms of equations (which would include numbers, variables, constants, etc). Proofs are not physical evidence.

You often confused proofs with evidence; they are not the same things for scientists or for mathematicians.

Proofs or equations are only part of the explanations in a hypothesis. So like the explanation, the mathematical equations could be wrong, if the evidence don't support the equations. So in sciences, you can reject equations if the equations have been refuted with physical evidence or with evidence-based data.

Stop using words such as "proof" or "proving"/"disproving", because these are dead-giveaway that you don't understand basic science at all.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. even he said in a manner of speaking as he was dying that he had enough. I guess he was not a real happy philosopher...

What he said was true. He was loved and revered as a person and a scientist world over. Sure, he had enough. Why do you think he was unhappy?

 

[YoursTrue]

I am not brilliant by any measure...I am still learning, and along the way, I still make plenty of mistakes.

But the question is, whether I can learn from my mistakes or not. And I think I can mostly can.

But I have seen many creationists, here and elsewhere, keep repeating the same errors over and over again, refusing to recognize their errors, and refusing to learn from their errors.

How many times, have I explain to you (and other creationists here), that proofs are not requirements of any scientific researches?

Evidence are important, because they provide information (data, such as quantities or measurements) about the OBSERVED physical or natural phenomena.

Proofs are just proposed abstract solutions, often expressed in the forms of equations (which would include numbers, variables, constants, etc). Proofs are not physical evidence.

You often confused proofs with evidence; they are not the same things for scientists or for mathematicians.

Proofs or equations are only part of the explanations in a hypothesis. So like the explanation, the mathematical equations could be wrong, if the evidence don't support the equations. So in sciences, you can reject equations if the equations have been refuted with physical evidence or with evidence-based data.

Stop using words such as "proof" or "proving"/"disproving", because these are dead-giveaway that you don't understand basic science at all.

If you're using theories such as those proposed by the Einsteins of scientific thinking, then it is ridiculous to think there is no verification of a theory. It is conjecture. You may object to that but just as scientists have pondered for some ridiculous unproductive reason about things like time travel, and causes of the universe, the word creationist is sorely misused by evolutionists describing what people believe. Gnite.

 

[Audie]

those are examples of absurdities that you have made up.

none of these examples - flying plane trips, paint drops and the painting of Mona Lisa - have anything to do with the theory of Evolution.

not only do your “=” signs are examples of Argument from Ignorance (in which @ratiocinator have accused you of), each of these examples are based on False Equivalence.

You are making up assumptions and scenarios that have nothing to do with Evolution.

Not a single ones of them - flight trips, paint droplets or painting - relate to biology; everything about Evolution is based on biology.

These examples of yours, are just disingenuous.

More likely innocent imo, just totally clueless.

 

[ratiocinator]

Sure they do. Planes did not come about without human hands and intelligence. Neither did the Mona Lisa.

You're still missing the point. Evolution is not a random process, so your comparison to planes dropping paint is invalid. Only somebody who knows nothing about evolution (or is being dishonest) would consider it a reasonable comparison.

This is evolution 101. It's not like it's even difficult.

 

[Audie]

I am not brilliant by any measure...I am still learning, and along the way, I still make plenty of mistakes.

But the question is, whether I can learn from my mistakes or not. And I think I can mostly can.

But I have seen many creationists, here and elsewhere, keep repeating the same errors over and over again, refusing to recognize their errors, and refusing to learn from their errors.

How many times, have I explain to you (and other creationists here), that proofs are not requirements of any scientific researches?

Evidence are important, because they provide information (data, such as quantities or measurements) about the OBSERVED physical or natural phenomena.

Proofs are just proposed abstract solutions, often expressed in the forms of equations (which would include numbers, variables, constants, etc). Proofs are not physical evidence.

You often confused proofs with evidence; they are not the same things for scientists or for mathematicians.

Proofs or equations are only part of the explanations in a hypothesis. So like the explanation, the mathematical equations could be wrong, if the evidence don't support the equations. So in sciences, you can reject equations if the equations have been refuted with physical evidence or with evidence-based data.

Stop using words such as "proof" or "proving"/"disproving", because these are dead-giveaway that you don't understand basic science at all.

Some creationists may be intelligent but I've
never seen one learn from a mistake.
A mental block of some sort.

Even the simplest thing a point of fact that in no way
compromises their religious ideas, still must be denied.

Maybe one of our creationists would like to explain why.

 

[Audie]

You're still missing the point. Evolution is not a random process, so your comparison to planes dropping paint is invalid. Only somebody who knows nothing about evolution (or is being dishonest) would consider it a reasonable comparison.

This is evolution 101. It's not like it's even difficult.

Even if a person does not believe any of the
theory, they could learn what the theory actually is.

Constantly arguing against some fantasy version
is ridiculous. As in only worthy of ridicule.

A little self respect from creationists would be nice.

 

[ratiocinator]

Even if a person does not believe any of the
theory, they could learn what the theory actually is.

Unfortunately, they may then see that all their objections evaporate, so many dare not do so. I haven't looked for ages but I used to look through creationist websites and they would, without fail (in my experience), all misrepresented what the theory actually said.

That's why we end up getting the likes of @YoursTrue ritually slaughtering innocent straw men....

 

[Audie]

Unfortunately, they may then see that all their objections evaporate, so many dare not do so. I haven't looked for ages but I used to look through creationist websites and they would, without fail (in my experience), all misrepresented what the theory actually said.

That's why we end up getting the likes of @YoursTrue ritually slaughtering innocent straw men....

I picture creatioist beliefs as a construct of a reality that
exists as a hard brittle shell.

A shell like that of the Titan, holding off the pressure of the real, from crushing their faith.

Conceding the tiniest flaw will result in disaster.

 

[wellwisher]

One of the problems that I have with the Multiverse is that it is so theoretical, it is impossible to test them.

Is Multiverse “possible”?

The answer would be “yes”, but only theoretically. There have been no evidence, so it hasn’t been demonstrated to be “probable”.

Being “possible” doesn’t mean it would be “probable”.

Science only accept what is “probable”, because there are evidence available to show concept agree with natural reality.

And yet, Multiverse is very popular, especially among sci-fi novelists, comic book authors and sci-fi filmmakers or tv series producers.

AND THERE LIES MY REAL PROBLEM with the Multiverse.

The problem is where people can confuse the actual Multiverse models with sci-fi stories.

And among the confusions Sci-Fi authors and film or tv makers cause, is that they mixed Multiverse with fictional alternate reality or parallel universe.

The Multiverse plus alternate reality, will have people believing that it is possible to reach the other universe through some sorts of portals like mirrors or the even more popular, wormholes.

Like Multiverse, wormhole is still only hypothetical and theoretical concepts; there are still no evidence for the existence of wormhole. But in comics and sci-fi, wormholes do exist, but these are fictions, not reality.

By mixing parallel universe with Multiverse, comic book and sci-fi creators will have people believing in the entertaining but unrealistic stories that there are infinite numbers of the “other” you in the other -verses. This is pure fiction.

The problem with these fictions, fascinating as they are, it would make naive people believing in the fiction, and not understanding what the Multiverse models actually say.

The multi-universe theory is actually a projection for how the brain processes data. Logic is 2-D; cause=x and affect=y. The multi-universe is more of a 3-D theory.

Picture a 3-D ball (x,y,z). We can approximate this 3-D ball with an infinite number of 2-D circles, all with a common center, each at different angles.

The brain uses both 2-D and 3-D thought processing, left and right brain, respectively. Science is more 2-D; rational circles a different angles, about a common center or topic. The sum of all these circles approximate the brain's 3-D memory.

The multi-universe theory is essentially helping us start with a 3-D image; right brain, and by going left brain, infinite rational circles can appear; scenarios for the different 2-D universes in the main 3-D multi-universe.

I have a lot of ideas about any topic, most of which come on demand. I do it by starting in 3-D and then releasing 2-D circles; rational analysis, since direct 3-D is hard to transfer with only 2-D language. You need a 3-D language with an intuitive z-axis. The multi-universe theory is good mind expanding theory. It is like a 3-D peg to generate endless rational universe scenarios of science fiction, that, although different, are all part of a larger integrated 3-D whole.

Picture if the 3-D ball; main 3-D universe, was a golf ball and it was struck by a driver. The ball would become distorted in 3-D, and then it would vibrate in 3-D causing all rational planes to contort in 3-D and overlap other circles at angles we did not see all at once. One would sense the z-axis phasing in and out.

 

[ratiocinator]

The multi-universe theory is actually a projection for how the brain processes data. Logic is 2-D; cause=x and affect=y. The multi-universe is more of a 3-D theory.

Picture a 3-D ball (x,y,z). We can approximate this 3-D ball with an infinite number of 2-D circles, all with a common center, each at different angles.

The brain uses both 2-D and 3-D thought processing, left and right brain, respectively. Science is more 2-D; rational circles a different angles, about a common center or topic. The sum of all these circles approximate the brain's 3-D memory.

The multi-universe theory is essentially helping us start with a 3-D image; right brain, and by going left brain, infinite rational circles can appear; scenarios for the different 2-D universes in the main 3-D multi-universe.

I have a lot of ideas about any topic, most of which come on demand. I do it by starting in 3-D and then releasing 2-D circles; rational analysis, since direct 3-D is hard to transfer with only 2-D language. You need a 3-D language with an intuitive z-axis. The multi-universe theory is good mind expanding theory. It is like a 3-D peg to generate endless rational universe scenarios of science fiction, that, although different, are all part of a larger integrated 3-D whole.

Picture if the 3-D ball; main 3-D universe, was a golf ball and it was struck by a driver. The ball would become distorted in 3-D, and then it would vibrate in 3-D causing all rational planes to contort in 3-D and overlap other circles at angles we did not see all at once. One would sense the z-axis phasing in and out.

 

[Audie]

Honestly, the people who think they can
offer lessons!

 

[nPeace]

Again, you providing false equivalence example.

Of course, humans have built buildings made from wood, stone or concrete, but that have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.

Buildings are not biology. You are making comparisons that have nothing to do with each other.

if you want to talk about Evolution, then provide biology examples.

but if you want to talk about building materials for construction of some buildings, then start a new thread, about architecture, or structural engineering, or construction practices.

Evolution has nothing to do with constructing houses, cars, mousetraps, watches, or writing computer programs, or whatever stupid and irrelevant analogies that creationists like to use.

@YoursTrue will correct me if I am wrong.
The point being made, is that a person who knows that the building was constructed by someone, is not blind.
With their eyes, they observed that the design that goes into the construction - from the making of the bricks, to the knobs on the door, required purposeful designers.
So, to claim that faith in an intelligent designer being responsible for the intricate design seen in nature - from the design of the cell, to sex, must be blind, does not logically follow.
That faith cannot be blind.

 

[Audie]

@YoursTrue will correct me if I am wrong.
The point being made, is that a person who knows that the building was constructed by someone, is not blind.
With their eyes, they observed that the design that goes into the construction - from the making of the bricks, to the knobs on the door, required purposeful designers.
So, to claim that faith in an intelligent designer being responsible for the intricate design seen in nature - from the design of the cell, to sex, must be bling, does not logically follow.
That faith cannot be blind.

You had it right first time , when you said that
faith must be bling.

 

[gnostic]

If you're using theories such as those proposed by the Einsteins of scientific thinking, then it is ridiculous to think there is no verification of a theory.

You really haven’t been paying attention, YoursTrue.

Scientific theories are former falsifiable hypotheses that have been VERIFIED through TESTS & OBSERVATIONS, YoursTrue.

TESTS & OBSERVATIONS means “evidence”, “experiments” & “data”.

It is evidence that will either refute the hypothesis or verify the hypothesis. That’s how you would “scientifically” test any hypothesis.

Evidence can also lead to updating existing theories, which can be any of the following:

• corrections to any errors of the theory
• amendments or modifications to theory, especially when there are better or improved explanations
• adding new portions to the theories when there are new information from the evidence; this can lead to expanding the theory.
• or removing portions from the theory that have been refuted

Astronomy and astrophysics are some of the sciences that are constantly updated, because new discoveries provide new information or data about for instances, planets, stars, supernovas, blackholes, galaxies, etc. These discoveries and data often come to us because of our technology have advanced, that provide better observations or more accurate measurements.

For examples, before space observatories, all observations are made from terrestrial telescopes, which are hampered by the Earth’s atmosphere, pollution and climate. Then in 1990, the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) was launch that provide clearer images than ever before, about the Solar System, then other stars, star clusters, nebulae within the Milky Way, other galaxies, and the universe. Then even more recently, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) provide even more higher resolution in the visible light spectrum and near infrared than the Hubble. There are many more other telescopes (past & present) that used other parts of EM spectrum for observations, such as ultraviolet, x-ray, gamma ray, etc.

The points in all these advancements in these technologies and new discoveries plus new data, is to improve our understanding about the universe. These new evidence & data can update the existing knowledge, and if necessary, debunk existing theories.

Medicine is another area where science are continually advancing, including in the areas of treatments, diagnosis, testing, etc.

Theories can be changed, corrected, updated, and when necessary, remove because when there are either better alternative (hence replacement) or when refuted.

 

[Audie]

You really haven’t been paying attention, YoursTrue.

Scientific theories are former falsifiable hypotheses that have been VERIFIED through TESTS & OBSERVATIONS, YoursTrue.

TESTS & OBSERVATIONS means “evidence”, “experiments” & “data”.

It is evidence that will either refute the hypothesis or verify the hypothesis. That’s how you would “scientifically” test any hypothesis.

Evidence can also lead to updating existing theories, which can be any of the following:

• corrections to any errors of the theory
• amendments or modifications to theory, especially when there are better or improved explanations
• adding new portions to the theories when there are new information from the evidence; this can lead to expanding the theory.
• or removing portions from the theory that have been refuted

Astronomy and astrophysics are some of the sciences that are constantly updated, because new discoveries provide new information or data about for instances, planets, stars, supernovas, blackholes, galaxies, etc. These discoveries and data often come to us because of our technology have advanced, that provide better observations or more accurate measurements.

For examples, before space observatories, all observations are made from terrestrial telescopes, which are hampered by the Earth’s atmosphere, pollution and climate. Then in 1990, the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) was launch that provide clearer images than ever before, about the Solar System, then other stars, star clusters, nebulae within the Milky Way, other galaxies, and the universe. Then even more recently, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) provide even more higher resolution in the visible light spectrum and near infrared than the Hubble. There are many more other telescopes (past & present) that used other parts of EM spectrum for observations, such as ultraviolet, x-ray, gamma ray, etc.

The points in all these advancements in these technologies and new discoveries plus new data, is to improve our understanding about the universe. These new evidence & data can update the existing knowledge, and if necessary, debunk existing theories.

Medicine is another area where science are continually advancing, including in the areas of treatments, diagnosis, testing, etc.

Theories can be changed, corrected, updated, and when necessary, remove because when there are either better alternative (hence replacement) or when refuted.

Reading the bible causes people to see
that's all nonsense

 

[nPeace]

You had it right first time , when you said that
faith must be bling.

Bling? Sounds like a young people's thing.