Science??

[nat.deezle]

Is anybody in here familiar with the Vilenkin-Borde-Guth Theorem? Is there anybody who does not find it substantial enough to do away with the multi-verse hypothesis? Just wondering!

[MorpheusSandman]

I know OF it, but I don't know how "familiar" you'd say I am with it. I'm not quite sure what it has (or what you think it has) to do with a multi-verse. AFAIK, the BGV is mostly about the early expansion of the universe, primarily stating that there must be a space-time boundary for our universe so that time can no be infinite into the past. However, it doesn't address what came before that boundary or the many different hypotheses for multiverses. Regarding the latter, it needs to be said that there is no single multiverse hypothesis; rather, multiverses arise from clues given in different fields about different things, from cosmology to quantum physics to astronomy to black holes to mathematics. Not all of the multiverses are the same.

[YesNo]

Is anybody in here familiar with the Vilenkin-Borde-Guth Theorem? Is there anybody who does not find it substantial enough to do away with the multi-verse hypothesis? Just wondering!

I've never read it, but from the secondary sources it claims that the universe could not be "past-eternal". That means it had a beginning even if the big bang was not the actual beginning.

Here's something from William Lane Craig who has used this theorem to establish the plausibility that the universe had a beginning in a debate with Lawrence Krauss that popped up when I searched for the theorem:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-bgv-theorem

Regarding the various multi-verse ideas, I assume that if our universe had a beginning, then many such beginnings could have occurred. Unlike some who use the multi-verse as a way to introduce chance into cosmology and avoid choice, I favor a general theistic view and assume all of these universes contain life, choice and intelligence and that was their intention. Each of them may be best viewed as panpsychic organisms themselves. One can put on top of that any particular theistic beliefs one wants.

The other multi-verse ideas such as many worlds have nothing to do with this and need to be addressed separately. However, after discussing many worlds with other members, I don't think many worlds is a legitimate interpretation of quantum physics. Many worlds is one attempt to remove quantum uncertainty from our universe and replace it with determinism. I don't think it succeeds.

[MorpheusSandman]

Unlike some who use the multi-verse as a way to introduce chance into cosmology and avoid choice,What a weasel word, "some;" Who? Please cite a cosmologist or mathematician or anyone that has "used a multi-verse to introduce chance into cosmology to avoid choice." You're getting lost in your own labyrinth of biases and concerns again and speaking out your rear end.


The other multi-verse ideas such as many worlds have nothing to do with thisIt's rather silly to say "there's MW and every other MV idea" since they're all different and different evidence has lead to the proposal of all of them. So they all really have nothing to do with each other beyond the same basic idea.


I don't think many worlds is a legitimate interpretation of quantum physics. Let's not neglect to mention that you don't have even a physics 101 level understanding of MW or QM, so your opinion is completely irrelevant on the matter and only good for corrupting naive minds that know even less than you do. Case in point:


Many worlds is one attempt to remove quantum uncertainty from our universe and replace it with determinism. MW is the attempt at taking the math of QM at face value and not adding any assumptions that create irreconcilable paradoxes that conflict with everything we know about physics and leads to experiments that make no funking sense, like particles affecting each other thousands of miles away at many times faster than the speed of light. In doing that it succeeds perfectly.