What is Evolution?

[Guy Threepwood]

This is like saying that anY apple that falls to the ground is evidenice of the theory of gravitation. it is, but only some limited aspects of it. The evidence of detecting gravitational waves of colliding black holes is evidence of a different class all together. Same hierarchy of evidence applies to all scientific theories.

This is where we agree entirely! extrapolating the observation of an apple falling from a tree, to explain all physical reality, was very tempting, but erred critically on the side of simplicity.

When we find a finch in a slightly different environment with a slightly different beak, there are also some very tempting speculations we can make from this.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You are mistaken. The second law and entropy ensures that complex self-organizing and self-perpetuating processes can crop up spontaneously in this universe at all. There is a very specific way in which entropy increases over time. The process starts with uniform order (a very low entropy state) and goes through and extended phase of complex systems involving self-organizing dynamical structures (like galaxies, stars, crystals, life...) that in the very long run eventually dissipate into uniform disorder (the heat death). We are bang in the middle phase of this entropic growth process, seeing complex dynamical structures all around including ourselves.

Low Entropy = Low Complexity or Structure (everything is pure and non-interacting)
Growing Entropy = High Complexity and Structure (various things interpenetrate each other and interact in a 1000 different ways)
High Entropy = Low Complexity and Structure (everything is fully mixed and non-interacting)

Life has been described as an organic entropy maximizing engine.

as in:

2.
lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
"a marketplace where entropy reigns supreme"

synonyms: deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse

 

[sayak83]

as in:

2.
lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
"a marketplace where entropy reigns supreme"

synonyms: deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse

As in
S= k Log(W)

That's entropy. This is science, not english. If you use a scientific theory (entropy always increases) then you have to use the scientific meaning of the word, and not how its thought of outside its domain.

 

[sayak83]

This is where we agree entirely! extrapolating the observation of an apple falling from a tree, to explain all physical reality, was very tempting, but erred critically on the side of simplicity.

When we find a finch in a slightly different environment with a slightly different beak, there are also some very tempting speculations we can make from this.

Newton's understanding of gravitation has been extended by Einstein, not replaced. Einstein added a lot of new features to the theory of gravitation that extended its reach and accuracy, but in its domain of applicability Newton is as applicable as it was before. It is often states in popular books that Einstein replaced gravity from a force to a curvature in space-time. This is not correct. Gravity as a force and gravity as a curvature in space-time are considered complementary ways of looking at the same phenomena, and thus we have gravitons, the force-carrying particles of gravity.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But there is a "guiding hand," as it were. Inferior results die off and do not get replicated. In life, they do not reproduce. Yes, in non-living, non-evolving things, entropy is the likely end. But in living things, when you have 1,000 failures and 1 success -- all thousand failures are gone and produce no copies of themselves, but the success leaves heirs. The "guiding hand" is simply whether the random change yielded advantage or disadvantage in the environment in which it occurs and competes.

Other way around:
Clearly for life, slightly inferior designs are not weeded out in a single generation, this only happens where ID can identify and stop a slightly inferior design from reaching market

But aside, your same process, algorithm should work with any design- . save money on R&D depts, simply make 1000 random changes, and you will have a good shot at 1 significantly superior car? the market will select the superior one and reject the inferior ones?

No, you would have millions of neutral to significantly inferior designs before 1 significantly superior car cropped up accidentally, if ever.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

As in
S= k Log(W)

That's entropy. This is science, not english. If you use a scientific theory (entropy always increases) then you have to use the scientific meaning of the word, and not how its thought of outside its domain.

Excuse me your royal heinous!

Entropy as in tendency towards collapse, away from functionality.

Scientifically, this entropy is exactly why classical physics failed. With only Newtonian physics working on the universe, it would collapse into non functionality, highly specific instructions 'guiding hands' are needed to support everything we see around us, it only appears simple, superficial to ourselves, the beneficiaries of it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Newton's understanding of gravitation has been extended by Einstein, not replaced. Einstein added a lot of new features to the theory of gravitation that extended its reach and accuracy, but in its domain of applicability Newton is as applicable as it was before. It is often states in popular books that Einstein replaced gravity from a force to a curvature in space-time. This is not correct. Gravity as a force and gravity as a curvature in space-time are considered complementary ways of looking at the same phenomena, and thus we have gravitons, the force-carrying particles of gravity.

So classical physics fundamentally failed to account for physical reality, which would collapse under those simple, superficial, 'immutable', laws.

Yes apples still fall from trees, but it would be a mistake to still think this represented the mechanics of the universe.

Darwinism was a natural extension of classical physics, we see the offspring apple fall from the parent tree, and similarly it is understandably extremely tempting to extrapolate this out to explain all life.
But it fails ultimately for the same reason, simple laws= simple results. Without a blueprint to work from, both physics and life would collapse under entropy.

 

[sayak83]

Excuse me your royal heinous!

Entropy as in tendency towards collapse, away from functionality.

Scientifically, this entropy is exactly why classical physics failed. With only Newtonian physics working on the universe, it would collapse into non functionality, highly specific instructions 'guiding hands' are needed to support everything we see around us, it only appears simple, superficial to ourselves, the beneficiaries of it.

What are you talking about? This is the modern scientific definition of entropy. And no, it has not failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What are you talking about? This is the modern scientific definition of entropy. And no, it has not failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

you misunderstood the point Sayak, I was using entropy in this sense


lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
"a marketplace where entropy reigns supreme"

synonyms: deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse


And it has very real scientific consequences. This entropy, is the reason why 'random mutations' in our own bodies do not generally tend to lead to superior eyesight, hearing, and bladder control!

All things being even, random changes, lead to inferior designs, unless there is a specific force to combat this entropy

 

[sayak83]

So classical physics fundamentally failed to account for physical reality, which would collapse under those simple, superficial, 'immutable', laws.

Umm the laws of GR and QM are also of the same kind. Its just bigger with MORE components to account for more phenomena. This equation is simply going to get expanded by adding in more components as more expansions are made. Alternatively you can make certain simplifying assumptions and get back classical mechanic equations by neglecting some terms when they become small. Science does not replace successful theories, it builds around it.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/


Despite what you have learnt, Newtonian mechanics was not considered the theory of everything. There was no explanation of chemistry within it, the theory of electricity came in much later in 1850, thermodynamics only began to develop in 1870. Scientific theories are models of reality whose only task is to successfully predict phenomena in its domain of applicability. The criteria of a good scientific theory is not some transcendental idea of truth, but that it works. And we constantly try to modify these theories so that it works even better.

Darwinism was a natural extension of classical physics, we see the offspring apple fall from the parent tree, and similarly it is understandably extremely tempting to extrapolate this out to explain all life.
But it fails ultimately for the same reason, simple laws= simple results. Without a blueprint to work from, both physics and life would collapse under entropy.

Do you actually know anything about nonequilibrium thermodynamics, complexity sciences etc.? They provide the physical foundation that makes evolution possible rather than undermine it.

https://smile.amazon.com/Lifes-Ratc...qid=1479757230&sr=1-1&keywords=life's+ratchet

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Other way around:

Clearly for life, slightly inferior designs are not weeded out in a single generation, this only happens where ID can identify and stop a slightly inferior design from reaching market

Of course not in a single generation! Unless the mutation was lethal, as some are. All that is required is for the mutation to lead fewer offspring than normal, or for a beneficial mutation to lead to more offspring than usual. And several generations later, it will be noticeable. See the Peppered Moth (Biston betularia) in England, and the experiments run by entomologist H. Bernard Kettlewell. It is very well attested.

But aside, your same process, algorithm should work with any design- . save money on R&D depts, simply make 1000 random changes, and you will have a good shot at 1 significantly superior car? the market will select the superior one and reject the inferior ones?


No, you would have millions of neutral to significantly inferior designs before 1 significantly superior car cropped up accidentally, if ever.

In fact, that might work, though. But the cost would actually be horrendous. Making 1000 inferior, unselected cars, over and over and over again (as profligate nature does) would be immeasurable more expensive than R&D, as you note. But nature, having all the time in the world, as it were, can be very profligate. The numbers of offspring for some creatures measures in the hundreds, sometimes thousands or even millions of offspring for a single parent. Nature isn’t interested in how many of them (the answer is most) perish.

Consider the red cottontail rabbit. The female can have up to 50 children per mating season, and of those, about half will be females who can breed in 3 months – meaning their mom could be the grandmother to over 1,200 in just 6 months, and great-great grandmother to over 780,000 in just one year! Thank goodness most of them don’t survive, actually! Other species are even more fecund.

In any case, this business of taking a human design process and then trying to make a one-to-one comparison to a natural biological process is simply poor argument.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Umm the laws of GR and QM are also of the same kind. Its just bigger with MORE components to account for more phenomena. This equation is simply going to get expanded by adding in more components as more expansions are made. Alternatively you can make certain simplifying assumptions and get back classical mechanic equations by neglecting some terms when they become small. Science does not replace successful theories, it builds around it.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com...world-of-everyday-experience-in-one-equation/


Despite what you have learnt, Newtonian mechanics was not considered the theory of everything. There was no explanation of chemistry within it, the theory of electricity came in much later in 1850, thermodynamics only began to develop in 1870. Scientific theories are models of reality whose only task is to successfully predict phenomena in its domain of applicability. The criteria of a good scientific theory is not some transcendental idea of truth, but that it works. And we constantly try to modify these theories so that it works even better.


Do you actually know anything about nonequilibrium thermodynamics, complexity sciences etc.? They provide the physical foundation that makes evolution possible rather than undermine it.

https://smile.amazon.com/Lifes-Ratchet-Molecular-Machines-Extract-ebook/dp/B00918JR5Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1479757230&sr=1-1&keywords=life's+ratchet

Okay, so again, classical physics was far too simple to account for physical reality, I think we agree, the sacred laws were not immutable after all.

A functional life sustaining universe was not what you just happened to get, with a handful of simple laws, lots of time and space, and luck as once believed. Everything from the early development of space/time/matter/energy to the specific design of great fusion reactors, and the complex elements they would produce in turn, specific to life... were written into far more complex deeper hidden instructions specific to those ends.

The development of life is a continuation of the development of the physical world, so I am merely skeptical, as are most, that the system reverts back at this point, to a 19th C methodology of simple intuitive laws + lots of time and space and luck. I believe it continues as it began, according to underlying specific instructions. This is also supported by the mathematical problems in relying purely on random chance mutations, as well as the fossil record.

Classical physics was around for a lot longer than evolution, it was far more directly observable, measurable, repeatable in experiment, i.e. scientific in method than evolution. But evolution is far more entrenched in science culture, iwith far greater ideological implications for atheists, so I understand the resistance of some to looking beyond it.


A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Of course not in a single generation! Unless the mutation was lethal, as some are. All that is required is for the mutation to lead fewer offspring than normal, or for a beneficial mutation to lead to more offspring than usual. And several generations later, it will be noticeable. See the Peppered Moth (Biston betularia) in England, and the experiments run by entomologist H. Bernard Kettlewell. It is very well attested.


In fact, that might work, though. But the cost would actually be horrendous. Making 1000 inferior, unselected cars, over and over and over again (as profligate nature does) would be immeasurable more expensive than R&D, as you note. But nature, having all the time in the world, as it were, can be very profligate. The numbers of offspring for some creatures measures in the hundreds, sometimes thousands or even millions of offspring for a single parent. Nature isn’t interested in how many of them (the answer is most) perish.

Well that would be the point. Natural selection works nicely where ID is not banished from the equation, where it can design and eliminate according a vast array of fitness functions, according to a purpose, goal, intent, phenomena that can only exist in creative consciousness, not nature.

Natural selection in itself goes without saying, it's why the Mustang outlasted the Pinto, it was a significantly superior design. How you acquire a significantly superior design to select for .. by accident.. that's the trickier part.

Consider the red cottontail rabbit. The female can have up to 50 children per mating season, and of those, about half will be females who can breed in 3 months – meaning their mom could be the grandmother to over 1,200 in just 6 months, and great-great grandmother to over 780,000 in just one year! Thank goodness most of them don’t survive, actually! Other species are even more fecund.

In any case, this business of taking a human design process and then trying to make a one-to-one comparison to a natural biological process is simply poor argument.

and like any successful gene pool, there is little if any change in the rabbits, or horseshoe crabs which remain practically identical for 100's of millions of years

it's not a controversial observation, that the ToE requires a relatively small, isolated, stressed population in order for a genetic advantage to make a difference, in fact it's one offered explanation for the missing 'transitional' species- that they only occur in very small populations that are lost. But the smaller the pool, the less likely even one single significant advantage will appear at all in a generation, Catch 22


But re, the comparison; this was my original post in this thread, changing only a few names within what was presented as evidence for evolution

Certain important features of the surviving autos and the junk yard record that the theory of evolution explains:-


Observed pattern of Progression in the junk yard record:-
Progression is defined as the pattern in the junk yard record in which

i) cars from the earliest strata will look very very different from modern running cars

ii) The cars depicted in the most ancient strata of the junk yard record will be continually replaced by new cars in subsequent strata which, while sharing many features of the earlier cars, will also show modifications in some of the features and emergence of some new features. They in turn will be replaced by new cars in a subsequent strata again showing a similar trend of gradual modifications of features, elimination of some older features and emergence of some new features.

iii) Due to this trend, cars in closely spaces strata will look similar to each other and in more distant strata will look more different. This trend cannot be explained by functional needs due to change in habitat alone as often modified models occupy nearly same kinds of habitats as older replaced species (like Lincolns vs Studebakers, Cadillacs v Desotos etc.)

iv) Levels closer to the present will increasingly show cars that look more and more like modern forms (but not the same).

v) When modern cars are categorized in groups based on character, it is found that the broadest and most generalized of features appear in a primitive form in the earliest cars (like possessing a chassis) while more specific features restricted to specialized subgroups (like having 4WD, having tailgates) appear in cars that appear later in the fossil record. More specialized and restricted the feature, the later it appears (like possessing OnStar as in Chevrolets appears later than possessing 4wd as in SUVs in general).


i.e. This isn't meant as a slam dunk argument for ID in life, it just illustrates that these observations in the record, do not in and of themselves, even hint at, far less prove a purely naturalistic process. The opposite argument can be made at least as well..

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Okay, so again, classical physics was far too simple to account for physical reality, I think we agree, the sacred laws were not immutable after all.

A functional life sustaining universe was not what you just happened to get, with a handful of simple laws, lots of time and space, and luck as once believed. Everything from the early development of space/time/matter/energy to the specific design of great fusion reactors, and the complex elements they would produce in turn, specific to life... were written into far more complex deeper hidden instructions specific to those ends.

The development of life is a continuation of the development of the physical world, so I am merely skeptical, as are most, that the system reverts back at this point, to a 19th C methodology of simple intuitive laws + lots of time and space and luck. I believe it continues as it began, according to underlying specific instructions. This is also supported by the mathematical problems in relying purely on random chance mutations, as well as the fossil record.

Classical physics was around for a lot longer than evolution, it was far more directly observable, measurable, repeatable in experiment, i.e. scientific in method than evolution. But evolution is far more entrenched in science culture, iwith far greater ideological implications for atheists, so I understand the resistance of some to looking beyond it.

Nothing in the thermodynamic laws contradicts evolution. And if it they did then it means that something was wrong somewhere between the two theories.

The reason evolution stands strong is the mountains of evidence for it and the zero evidence against it.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck

That is a quip from Max Planck. Do you know why he said it and what sort of issues he dealt with to come to that conclusion? I doubt. So lets discuss that. He was a scientist during the turn of the century and died in the 50's at 89 years old. During the the time he began to work in science we were on the cusps of massive change. Prior to the turn of the century many believed us to be in a golden age where we have discovered pretty much the basics of the universe and needed to look no further. He was appointed a theoretical physicist position at his university nearly 20 years before the Wright brothers launched the first aviation flight in human history. Science moved slowly back then. He was already settled into a position of scientific authority so to speak 4 years before An Origin of Species was published. That was how the scientific community changed back then. It was constrained and controlled by those that thought they already knew. Then the 20th' century happened and turned everything upside down. In a hundred years time we uprooted and changed more than we have in the previous 1,000. Dare I say we have advanced more in scientific understanding the last 100 years than perhaps the whole of previous human history. We went from coal powered trains, horses and bugies to solar powered planes and a full tmie space station.

There is no time for the old to die out and the new to come in todays world. Evidence changes the mind of people. Adaptation is the new normal. We don't have the luxury to stick to archaic theories without propper evidence. The books are updated every year.

Evolution isn't around because its part of our culture. Its around because the evidence supports it overwhelmingly so.

 

[sayak83]

you misunderstood the point Sayak, I was using entropy in this sense


lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
"a marketplace where entropy reigns supreme"

synonyms: deterioration, degeneration, crumbling, decline, degradation, decomposition, breaking down, collapse


And it has very real scientific consequences. This entropy, is the reason why 'random mutations' in our own bodies do not generally tend to lead to superior eyesight, hearing, and bladder control!

All things being even, random changes, lead to inferior designs, unless there is a specific force to combat this entropy

There is no universal law of increase in entropy in that sense. In fact its the opposite. The current phase of the universe is tending to greater complexity and structure and richness than the reverse, in accordance to the actual law of increase of scientific entropy which is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[sayak83]

Okay, so again, classical physics was far too simple to account for physical reality, I think we agree, the sacred laws were not immutable after all.

A functional life sustaining universe was not what you just happened to get, with a handful of simple laws, lots of time and space, and luck as once believed. Everything from the early development of space/time/matter/energy to the specific design of great fusion reactors, and the complex elements they would produce in turn, specific to life... were written into far more complex deeper hidden instructions specific to those ends.

The development of life is a continuation of the development of the physical world, so I am merely skeptical, as are most, that the system reverts back at this point, to a 19th C methodology of simple intuitive laws + lots of time and space and luck. I believe it continues as it began, according to underlying specific instructions. This is also supported by the mathematical problems in relying purely on random chance mutations, as well as the fossil record.

Classical physics was around for a lot longer than evolution, it was far more directly observable, measurable, repeatable in experiment, i.e. scientific in method than evolution. But evolution is far more entrenched in science culture, iwith far greater ideological implications for atheists, so I understand the resistance of some to looking beyond it.


A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck

Evolution is the new science. While Darwin proposed some of its key parts in 1850's , it became a scientific theory in 1950 and have simply gotten better and better with the discovery of genetics and revolution in biological sciences in the recent decades. In the 1900, nobody had a coherent theory of evolution, in 1950 there was a coherent theory but no research program. In 2016 evolutionary theory has a robust research program fully integrated with all aspects of biology, medicine and genetic sciences and has expanded its reach to impact and influence many branches of physics, chemistry, psychology, computational science and engineering. There just isn't any serious scientific challenge to evolutionary sciences anywhere in the offing. Its quite the opposite. New sciences are modeling themselves on evolutionary ideas and many of the newer theories in older sciences are using various aspects of evolutionary principles.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is no universal law of increase in entropy in that sense. In fact its the opposite. The current phase of the universe is tending to greater complexity and structure and richness than the reverse, in accordance to the actual law of increase of scientific entropy which is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Again, you make my point exactly, the universe gained in complexity according to the information, universal constants, complex math, specifying exactly how to do so- not by a few simple classical laws randomly bumping around a lot of time and space as once thought. We can look back and see the universe exploding into very distinct stages of development, very finely specified in the instructions at each stage, and all exactly necessary for life as we know it

Similarly we observe life getting MORE complex, and similarly in very distinct defined 'explosions' And so similarly, I don't think 150 year old classical laws of evolution, based on 'random mutation' are going to cut it here. We all agree that life is still a mystery- between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium, evolutionists still have not agreed on whether the fossil record is an accurate representation or a corrupted illusion. I think we can solve it, but we have to be willing to move beyond a familiar old friend, again classical physics was deemed far more solid than evolution. But science is a far bigger institution now, I don't agree it's more flexible at all. And the ideological implications of a comprehensive 'all natural- chance driven' explanation.. are even greater for atheists than steady state/classical physics were. This is often what holds science back

The skeptic of conventional atheism has no fear of delving deeper on any of these issues.

 

[sayak83]

Again, you make my point exactly, the universe gained in complexity according to the information, universal constants, complex math, specifying exactly how to do so- not by a few simple classical laws randomly bumping around a lot of time and space as once thought. We can look back and see the universe exploding into very distinct stages of development, very finely specified in the instructions at each stage, and all exactly necessary for life as we know it

I do not see any specification. I consider the universe to be inherently complex and phenomena rich, ALWAYS. Anything that has the capability of genetic descent with modification is already highly highly complex. Thus the evolutionary theory starts with an existing complex structure and tells how it diversified into many forms of complexity that are tightly bound to function. Evolution does not explain complexity, and today it does not need to as physics and chemistry today can explain this quite well. What evolution explains is how certain kinds of complex systems (like life) have developed tight connections with functions...i.e. functional complexity.

Explaining complexity:- Comes from physics itself (modern development)
Explaining Functional complexity:- Comes from evolution.

Thus modern sciences have bolstered evolution by explaining where the raw material it needs, a pre-existing complexity that does not go away...comes from.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I do not see any specification. I consider the universe to be inherently complex and phenomena rich, ALWAYS. Anything that has the capability of genetic descent with modification is already highly highly complex. Thus the evolutionary theory starts with an existing complex structure and tells how it diversified into many forms of complexity that are tightly bound to function. Evolution does not explain complexity, and today it does not need to as physics and chemistry today can explain this quite well. What evolution explains is how certain kinds of complex systems (like life) have developed tight connections with functions...i.e. functional complexity.

Explaining complexity:- Comes from physics itself (modern development)
Explaining Functional complexity:- Comes from evolution.

Thus modern sciences have bolstered evolution by explaining where the raw material it needs, a pre-existing complexity that does not go away...comes from.

Well there you go, we are stuck looking at something highly sophisticated and finely engineered one way or another, i.e. if/when we discover the underlying instructions guiding the development of life as well as physics, it need not force one to accept ID or God, that should always be a matter of faith.

But these discoveries did lead, through the Big Bang and other theories, eventually to the proposition of an infinite probability machine/ multiverse, to account for something as otherwise inexplicable as physical reality- so why not for life also?

It's not technically impossible, I concede, that all the necessarily complex instructions specifying the creation of life, and a habitat for it to thrive in- came to an end with the first replicator, and all else was left to chance from that point on

...and then the result, of one single sentient being out of millions, capable of pondering, investigating, appreciating it all..... just one more bizarre coincidence to cap it all? perhaps, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

 

[sayak83]

Well there you go, we are stuck looking at something highly sophisticated and finely engineered one way or another, i.e. if/when we discover the underlying instructions guiding the development of life as well as physics, it need not force one to accept ID or God, that should always be a matter of faith.

But these discoveries did lead, through the Big Bang and other theories, eventually to the proposition of an infinite probability machine/ multiverse, to account for something as otherwise inexplicable as physical reality- so why not for life also?

It's not technically impossible, I concede, that all the necessarily complex instructions specifying the creation of life, and a habitat for it to thrive in- came to an end with the first replicator, and all else was left to chance from that point on

...and then the result, of one single sentient being out of millions, capable of pondering, investigating, appreciating it all..... just one more bizarre coincidence to cap it all? perhaps, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

The multiverse is not something that was proposed in order to explain anything. Its a prediction of another theory, the theory of inflation, that was proposed in order to explain why the universe expanded so quickly in the early times. The mechanism of inflation reproduced the expansion and other expansion related features very well, but it proved very difficult to make the entire universe come out of the early fast expansion phase at the same time using the math. Thus the multiverse was predicted as the math showed that there will be many many regions of the universe where the universe is still expanding very quickly and local pockets (like ours) where it has slowed down, like bubbles in a pot of boiling water. Nobody invented the multiverse, the math forced it on the physicists and they haven't yet found a way to get rid of it.