Instigator / Pro
4
1417
rating
27
debates
24.07%
won
Topic
#3414
A multiverse doesn't exist
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
Novice
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
7
1597
rating
22
debates
65.91%
won
Description
Rules:
* Follow website terms of service
* Don't commit these fallacies listed here: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
* Make sure to read all the links the opponent offers
* If you fail to follow the following rules, then your arguments shall be weakened
* If you can't follow the rules, then you already lost before the debate ended
* I, the creator of the rules am also under these rules.
Other rules that you wouldn't be penalized for
* Try to respond as fast as possible, though it's okay of life slows you down
* Try to make arguments as short as possible
* Try to make arguments readable
* Try to be as clear as possible
* other similar tips
Round 1
Here are my arguments against the multiverse:
epistemological arguments:
1. There is no evidence for a multiverse
2. We can't even come close to the ability to detect another universe
spatial arguments:
3. If all universes had the same laws of physics, then that would mean that they would all be expanding, and if they would all be expanding, then they would hit each other and form 1 universe
4. If the 3rd point was true, and the multiverse was eternal, then the universe would have been eternal, since all the universes would have become one. But we know the universe began since the big bang was discovered.
5. If all universes were expanding, then what would keep them from colliding? Is there even anything even keeping them from colliding.
6. So if the number of universes is infinite and each universe had different laws of physics, then what would happen if there is a universe with laws of physics that makes it impossible for other universes to exist? Wouldn't the entire system crumble?
7. Wouldn't the multiverse require a set of laws to keep the universes from vanishing or becoming 1 universe.
8. What would happen if 2+ universes collide?
9. If our universe is infinite, then there wouldn't be space for other universe.
10. If a multiverse exists, is our universe growing in size or are we shrinking?
11. How would all the universes be formed? Are they created by an intelligent being or a factory-like mechanism? If universes are made from a factory like mechanism, who made it? what kind of laws keeps it operating?
12. How did the multiverse begin? It can't have always existed because of points 3, 4, 5, and 6.
13. If all universes began with the big bang, then something had to make all the multiverses.
14. If universes came out of other universes, and the number of universes was limited, then the original universe would have to be created.
15. If the amount of universes is infinite, and universes came from other universes, then the multiverse would be ever regressing, and since the universes are coming out each other, then there would need to be space for new universes. And the infinite multiverse would mean that for every new universe, all the universes would be moving since for every universe that moves, then another universe would move. This would cause an infinite ripple for every new universe created, then for every universe born then all the universe would move in a ruckus.
16. If 16 is true, then what would keep universes from colliding with each other and forming a new and bigger universe?
17. If universes come from other universes, what kind of laws would control how this happens?
Ontological arguments:
18. If a multiverse exists, Then what is the meaning of a universe?
19. If a universe is defined as "all of totality/everything" then the multiverse would be part of the universe.
20. If a universe is defined as "all matter/space" then what about the matter and space in other universes? Wouldn't they be included in 1 universe?
21. If a universe is defined as "Everything that can be observed", then that would exclude an immeasurable amount of stuff in our universe that we can't observe.
22. If 18 is true, then how can there be multiple totalities(in other words, more than 1 everything)?
Resolved: A multiverse doesn't exist
FRAMEWORK
- Multiverse: Many modern physicists think about a multiverse in the context of the “many worlds” theory of quantum mechanics. The theory tries to explain the behaviour of subatomic particles, which can simultaneously exist in different locations at the same time.
- Multiverse theory suggests that our universe, with all its hundreds of billions of galaxies and almost countless stars, spanning tens of billions of light-years, may not be the only one. Instead, there may be an entirely different universe, distantly separated from ours — and another, and another.
- Multiverse theory suggests that our universe, which consists of billions and billions of planets, stars and galaxies, and extends out tens of billions of light-years, may not be the only universe that exists.
NOTES
- I think the resolution the multiverse doesn't exist is an interesting one. The multiverse in itself has many theories, ideas, and interpretations to it. I interpret the resolution as a generalization of all of them, rather than any specific iteration.
- The multiverse is only often regarded as an unfalsifiable theory.
OVV
- The expanding universe as we perceive it
- "According to the simplest extrapolation of the currently favored cosmological model, the Lambda-CDM model, this acceleration becomes more dominant into the future. In June 2016, NASA and ESA scientists reported that the universe was found to be expanding 5% to 9% faster than thought earlier, based on studies using the Hubble Space Telescope" [1].
- "The universe is getting bigger every second. The space between galaxies is stretching, like dough rising in the oven. But how fast is the universe expanding? As Hubble and other telescopes seek to answer this question, they have run into an intriguing difference between what scientists predict and what they observe" [2].
- It is accepted that the universe is expanding. Ceratin astrology studies have shown that it could be expanding at a faster rate than previously believed, as NASA states, it expands vastly every second, but experiments have evaluated models to more precisely predict its expansion rate.
- As national geographic states, "Using a model that predicts many of the universe’s properties with spectacular success—known as the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model—cosmologists can mathematically fast-forward the infant universe as seen in the CMB and predict what today’s Hubble constant should be. This method predicts that the universe should be expanding at a rate of about 67.36 kilometers per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec equals 3.26 million light-years) [3].
- It should be held commonplace that the universe is expanding
- Going off this premise, there is a point I would like to make on the existence of the multiverse.
COSMIC INFLATION
- On Monday (March 17), scientists announced new findings that mark the first-ever direct evidence of primordial gravitational waves — ripples in space-time created just after the universe began. If the results are confirmed, they would provide smoking-gun evidence that space-time expanded at many times the speed of light just after the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago" [4].
- Many physicists believe these findings give credence to the existence of a multiverse.
- Following the big bang, the dispense of energy and matter created the inflation of the Universe or as Nasa states the "extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe during its first few moments."
- As these theories assert "when the universe grew exponentially in the first tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, some parts of space-time expanded more quickly than others" [4].
- Following this idea, subsections or "bubbles" of spacetime likely were created and developed; leading to the possibility of their development into other universes.
- As Stanford University theoretical physicist Andrei Linde states "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow [a] multiverse, but it's difficult. Every experiment that brings better credence to inflationary theory brings us much closer to hints that the multiverse is real." [4].
- I hold the argument that cosmic inflation posits the idea of a multiverse as a likelihood and a reasonable explanation for the phenomena we have observed and theorize.
CONCLUSION
- Round 1 is dedicated to the opening case as time and character restrictions are considered.
- Round 2 will be dedicated to rebuttals. I will address PRO's questions therein.
SOURCES
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe
- https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/mystery-of-the-universe-s-expansion-rate-widens-with-new-hubble-data
- https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-universe-is-expanding-faster-than-it-should-be
- https://www.space.com/25100-multiverse-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves.html
Round 2
Note that while I don't believe in a multiverse, I think the idea is cool one to explore in fiction.
One of the biggest arguments for a multiverse is the fine tuning of the universe. Fine-tuning refers to the fact that even the smallest changes to the constants of nature would have resulted in a universe incapable of supporting life. Because life on earth is a complete universal anomaly and no other forms of life like us have been discovered anywhere in the observable universe, the multiverse theorists believe that in some other universe other than ours in an infinite number of universes would have a chance that it would have some life like ours.
The biggest problem with this argument for a multiverse is that its an example of a gambler's fallacy. A link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy
I'll define a gambler's fallacy as yourlogicalfallacyis.com puts it "You said that 'runs' occur to statistically independent phenomena such as roulette wheel spins."
The problem with this chance thinking is that some things have no chance of happening, for example: If you put 100 rubber balls(all of which are colored yellow) in a cardboard box and then cut a hole in the box to let your arm in. So then you but your arm in the box and you want to get a red ball, so you try to grab a ball in the box. What is the chance that out the 100 hundred balls that you grab are going to be red? Of course the answer is 0%.
Another problem with the multiverse theory is that we have to design a new set of fine tuned scientific laws that would explain the ways the multiverse works. But since we can't prove that a multiverse exists then how can we know that our law set is correct? The answer is we can't.
So if we were to choose one of 2 explanations for the existence of the fine tuning - the first one being an intelligent designer and the 2nd one being the multiverse - which would we pick? Well to start with, Occam's razor basically states that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" in other words - when there are at least two equally good explanations for a certain phenomena then always choose the explanation that makes the fewest assumptions or the simplest explanation. Basically, we must give up old theories when they become overly complicated and accept newer, simpler theories, as simpler things tend to be cleaner, easier to fix, less of a mess, and easier to understand.
A good example of Occam's razor at work is heliocentrism(the idea that the sun is at the center of the solar system) vs geocentrism(The idea that the earth was at the center of the solar system). So to start heliocentrism and geocentrism were both made to explained the motion of the planets and celestial bodies in our sky. So first we'll start with the geocentrism theory and how it fares. So geocentrism starts with the assumption that all the planets are moving around the earth; However it is discovered that planets did not just move through the sky: Sometimes the planets danced with the sun around strange patterns, sometimes the planets move backwards, and sometimes other things happen. So then this was explained with the theory that planets move in epicycles, which themselves orbited the earth. As more discrepancies in the movements of the planets occurred, the more epicycles were added. Eventually the geocentric model became a mess and the evidence then complied with the heliocentric model.
So how will we choose between multiverse and intelligent design? Well let's first check the multiverse theory:
* There are multiple/infinite universes
* the universes come about through intelligent design/coming from other universes/ a universe making machine/ just appear randomly
* There are(well should be since we don't have proof) laws that govern this multiverse, what ever they are.
* It isn't even one, there are more complicated multiverse theories/models like Eternal inflation model, many worlds model, quilted multiverse, etc.
* But all these models are just speculation.
* As
Now we'll check intelligent design:
* An intelligence created the universe
* This intelligence(whatever it is) would have to be of unimaginable power/omnipotent, timeless(for it made time), immaterial(for it made matter), spaceless(for it created space), supernatural(for it made the nature), above the laws of physics(for it made the laws of physics). Basically this intelligence is beyond everything and is personal(for only minds can make minds).
So which theory is more likely to error, well of course the multiverse. Also even the multiverse needs a beginning for all the reasons in the 22 arguments in round 1.
sources:
Forfeited
Round 3
A multiverse can't exist because as I already stated:
* It breaks the definition of a universe
* It's a gambler's fallacy
* It cannot be observed
* It cannot be proven or disproven
* It is too complicated and breaks Occam's razor
* Multiple universes can't exist if they are not fine tuned to exist
* It ultimately needs a beginning
* An infinite amount of universe with each having the same laws of physics would inevitably expand to touch merge and cause an infinitely regressing timeline
* There is no evidence for multiple timelines
* The multiple timelines theory would ultimately need to have a beginning
* The inflationary model will cause a chaotic movement in the multiverse.
* etc
For an explanation: Last round was not forfeited by will of my own, but because of a glitch in the site upon posting my argument, similar to the glitch reportedly experienced by former user Incel_Chud in this debate I had with him https://www.debateart.com/debates/3357-women-should-be-the-property-of-men#
I have contacted the Mods about this but they cannot do anything for now. This was my round two argument and let it serve as my conclusion as well.
- My opponent does not respond or address a single argument I have made in round one, so I must conclude that he effectively DROPS or CONCEDES the entirety of them.
- I want to first get back to expanding/extending my argument, and then go on to rebut both round one and two points that stand out.
COSMIC INFLATION II:
- In round one I argued that cosmic inflation provides evidence of the multiverse. PRO does NOT object to this.
- As American theoretical astrophysicist, Ethan Siegel states, "If cosmic inflation and quantum field theory are both correct, then the Multiverse arises as an inevitable consequence of the two, combined" [1].
- Let's agree on what Cosmic Inflation means. As New Scientists states "Cosmic inflation is a faster-than-light expansion of the universe that spawned many others" [3].
- Dr. Ethan Siegel says that "Inflation is now widely regarded as the origin of our Universe, and those observations narrow down which classes of inflationary models remain viable" [4]. As it turns out, Siegel is correct in this assessment. As Wikipedia mentions on inflation (cosmology), "The basic inflationary paradigm is accepted by most physicists, as a number of inflation model predictions have been confirmed by observation; however, a substantial minority of scientists dissent from this position" [5].
- Let's agree that several inflation model predictions have been proven accurate and most/the majority of physicists accept the theory.
- I believe cosmic inflation suggests a possibility we may be living in a multiverse. As cosmic inflation tells us, the Universe grew exponentially in the first tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang.
- As a result of this "some parts of space-time expanded more quickly than others. This could have created "bubbles" of space-time that then developed into other universes. The known universe has its own laws of physics, while other universes could have different laws, according to the multiverse concept" [7]. This argument was raised in the previous round and CON does not object to it.
- As a conclusion to this argument, I will quote Dr. Ethan Single. "Those regions of space where inflation end and the hot Big Bang begins are each their own, independent Universe, and together, they make up a Multiverse. We may not be able to measure these other Universes, at least not just yet, but there’s every reason to expect that if inflation and quantum field theory are both correct, then the Multiverse inevitably exists" [4].
CONCLUSION
- It is resolved today that "A multiverse doesn't exist."
- I argue, that the multiverse is a possibility and a justified one at that, and I hope to see PRO engage with my arguments in the following round. I do not believe my opponent has refuted my case or shown it to be unreasonable.
- We can't claim that a multiverse does not exist knowing what we know about cosmic inflation.
- SPACE (Alan Guth, theoretical physicist): "It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse," Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference Monday. "It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously" [7].
- Most if not almost every inflationary model leads to the multiverse. If you reject inflation you reject what appears to be a scientific consensus. If you accept inflation, and every inflationary model leads to the multiverse, how on earth can we say it does not exist with any certainty? The resolution fails.
REBUTTALS
- Now as I have promised to dedicate around two to rebuttals of arguments. PRO created a gish gallop of questions presented in round one, and as the characters are limited, I will seek to respond to the most relevant ones.
We can't even come close to the ability to detect another universe
- I would agree that there are aspects of the multiverse that remain indefinitely puzzling, however many testable models of the multiverse exist, and large parts of the theory. According to BeThniking: "some current multiverse models do make testable predictions. Stated another way, they have consequences in our universe that future measurements could validate or falsify. For example, some models predict that another universe might have collided with ours during its earliest phases. Such a collision would produce measurable signatures in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Similarly, a multiverse would naturally cause asymmetries in the CMB that some scientists claim to have found"
If all universes had the same laws of physics, then that would mean that they would all be expanding, and if they would all be expanding, then they would hit each other and form 1 universe
- According to SPACE, and as I previously argued: "The known universe has its laws of physics, while other universes could have different laws, according to the multiverse concept." I think the question fails because the premise that all universes have the same laws of physics is false. Ill address Universe collisions in your next question
If all universes were expanding, then what would keep them from colliding? Is there even anything even keeping them from colliding.
- There very well could be evidence of Universe collisions with our universe, and of other universes colliding with each other.
- If another Universe had collided with our own "the crash would have left an imprint on the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the faint afterglow from the Big Bang" [8].
If a multiverse exists, is our universe growing in size or are we shrinking?
- The Universe is growing in size. As I have shown, and as you do not object to. We should agree that the universe is expanding at rates we have been able to predict, and there has been no recorded evidence of our world proactively decreasing in size.
How would all the universes be formed? Are they created by an intelligent being or a factory-like mechanism? If universes are made from a factory-like mechanism, who made it? what kind of laws keeps it operating?
- Science has considerable enough evidence to say the Big Bang was the foundation of the universe. I believe is worth pondering whether a God or Deity exists that set this mechanism into place, but those theories are unfalsifiable and not relevant to our current debate.
If all universes began with the big bang, then something had to make all the multiverses.
- The question seems to have been answered by its first premise. All Universes began with the big bang. therefore that was their origin. If you mean to argue that the big bang has an origin or cause, it's an argument I am willing to have, but for the sake of the existence of a multiverse, it is irrelevant.
If universes came out of other universes, and the number of universes was limited, then the original universe would have to be created.
- Universes can branch-off and emerge from other larger expanding Universes. inflation: the expansion of the universe is the mechanism for this, not one ultimate original universe that caused this chain. Many universes expand simultaneously.
If universes come from other universes, what kind of laws would control how this happens?
- There are no rigid laws that control how inflation manifests because we are still studying the matter of inflation in and of itself.
- Cosmological models and inflationary models can predict how different universes can exist.
- As I said previously, most astrophysicists accept cosmic inflation because "a number of inflation model predictions have been confirmed by observation" [5], and it is very hard to make an inflation model that does not lead to the multiverse [7].
In round 3 we will go over CON's more ontological-based ideas/questions, and conclude on cosmic inflation.
SOURCES
- https://evolutionnews.org/2022/03/astrophysicists-battle-over-whether-the-multiverse-must-exist/
- https://www.bethinking.org/is-there-a-creator/multiverse-musings-is-it-testable
- https://www.newscientist.com/definition/cosmic-inflation/
- https://bigthink.com/13-8/is-the-multiverse-real/
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)
- https://www.livescience.com/multiverse
- https://www.space.com/25100-multiverse-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves.html
- https://www.quantamagazine.org/multiverse-collisions-may-dot-the-sky-
Thanks and no problem, I understand people have lives and not everyone has time to vote
Congratulations Novice. I would have voted like whiteflame, but I didn't have the time.
thanks a lot!
TIme is running out fast, and I hope someone is able to vote on this.
I don't want a voteless tie again
Please note that my round 3 argument is a placement of my ROUND TWO argument
For an explanation: Last round was not forfeited by will of my own, but because of a glitch in the site upon posting my argument, similar to the glitch reportedly experienced by former user Incel_Chud in this debate I had with him https://www.debateart.com/debates/3357-women-should-be-the-property-of-men#
I have contacted the Mods about this but they cannot do anything for now. This was my round two argument and let it serve as my conclusion as well.
As I DID NOT FORFERIT because of my own will, and I have a justified reason, therefore I appeal that conduct is not take from me
Regardless, thanks for your consideration
Please Vote!
why hasn't nobody voted yet? Seriously I don't want ties, Either pro or con has to win.
Following this, I will accept it as a concession and droping all all my points.
I see only repetition of previously debunked assertions. If you have questions or novel arguments I will be available.
---You are incorrect, the error can be demonstrated simply by considering human history, there was a time when the vast majority of humanity fervently believed in animism, that the sky was a fabric dome of some kind, etc.... including the "authorities", a logical form that only works in one cultural context is inherently fallacious as it contradicts the same form in all other contexts. Contrast with valid logic such as a mathematical proof, it does not depend on whether shamans out number PhDs---
Again, following the Neil Degrase Tyson aborition example, normative statements can't be justified by authority. POSITIVE statements absolutely can, because they are grounded in empricism, and evidence. I presented this evidence by explaining cosmic inflation, sourcing that it has been proven to be true, and asserting that this appears to be a scientific consensus.
---Not if the argument is invalid---
The argument is both sound and valid. The premises lead to the conclusion and each premise is true
Perhaps you should admit being wrong on this
"Again, if such a large proportion of authorities assert something, it isn't fallacious in any way."
You are incorrect, the error can be demonstrated simply by considering human history, there was a time when the vast majority of humanity fervently believed in animism, that the sky was a fabric dome of some kind, etc.... including the "authorities", a logical form that only work in one cultural context is inherently fallacious as it contradicts the same form in all other contexts. Contrast with valid logic such as a mathematical proof, it does not depend on whether shamans out number PhDs.
"As long as I prove each premise to be true, the argument is sound."
Not if the argument is invalid.
You are so confidently wrong on this, stop embarrassing yourself.
--"That would be like saying "every scientist has accepted models that have proven the earth is round" is an appeal to authority."
It is, and it has no place in formal debate--
You clearly have no understanding of how a debate works, and have never been in one.
Again, if such a large proportion of authorities assert something, it isn't fallacious in any way.
Appeal to Authority: Neil Degrase Tyson says abortion is not wrong therefore aborion isn't wrong
Debate Claim: 98% of physicists have accepted cosmic inflation as various aspects of the theory have been proven
--There are a lot of problems with the framing of this debate, but without getting into those the above argument is a non-sequiter. In order for it to be valid p3 (mislabeled) would have to be: IF cosmic inflation occurred after the big bang THEN multiverse--
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The premise is true, therefore it is a justified statement. As long as I prove each premise to be true, the argument is sound. I have proven each premise to be true and therefore the argument is sound.
Whereas my argument was on the basis of
p1) cosmic inflation occurred after the big bang
p2) cosmic inlfation has been proven to be true and is a scientific consensus (like the earth being round)
p2) inflation occurs diversely and inflationary models almost all lead to the multiverse
c) Therefore the multiverse is a possibility
There are a lot of problems with the framing of this debate, but without getting into those the above argument is a non-sequiter. In order for it to be valid p3 (mislabeled) would have to be: IF cosmic inflation occurred after the big bang THEN multiverse. If your opponent knew up from down they would simply challenge that premise, and if you thought that premise was taken for granted you wouldn't have provided it as a quote from a supposed authority.
"That would be like saying "every scientist has accepted models that have proven the earth is round" is an appeal to authority."
It is, and it has no place in formal debate.
"If the authority is legitimate, arguing from authority is the most valid argument possible—the definitive argument."
Incorrect, there are no infallible people, at most a cogent argument is possible and even those ought to be banned from formal debate as it is inference by proxy, no different from ad populum. The reason derivative inference is useless can easily be seen by looking one move ahead. If your opponent challenges the trueness of the authority the only arbiter is a primary inference, i.e. the actual arguments about the actual subject.
What most people don't realize (it seems) is that the fallacy known as Appeal to Authority only refers to when someone cites as the rightful authority something or someone who is not. That is, when it is an appeal to a false authority.
If the authority is legitimate, arguing from authority is the most valid argument possible—the definitive argument.
you are extemely ignorant and it shows
You cherrypicked one statement of me saying
"Many physicists believe these findings give credence to the existence of a multiverse"
Whereas my argument was on the basis of
p1) cosmic inflation occurred after the big bang
p2) cosmic inlfation has been proven to be true and is a scientific consensus (like the earth being round)
p2) inflation occurs diversely and inflationary models almost all lead to the multiverse
c) Therefore the multiverse is a possibility
No, listen.
It's irrelevant who says it, these are facts.
I cited that cosmic inflation has been proven to be true in many aspects therefore leading most astrological physicists to accept it. An appeal to authority isn't such when you cite the specific authorities of a field of study.
That would be like saying "every scientist has accepted models that have proven the earth is round" is an appeal to authority.
If 99% of an authroity in a feild asserts somthing it isn't fallacious
"I specifically argue that cosmic inflation models all lead to the multiverse. How can you be dishonest?"
No, you cite purported authorities claiming something they call cosmic inflation models all lead to the "multiverse".
Citing assertions which are supposedly identical to your conclusion is quintessential appeal to authority. Let me put it in a categorical syllogism so you can recognize it:
/ Many physicists believe these findings give credence to the existence of a multiverse.
/ Many physicists constitute an authority and authorities are infallible/probably correct <- unspoken but necessary authority premise
// Therefore the multiverse exists/probably exists.
Without the authority premise you don't get to the conclusion. With the authority premise you're appealing to authority, which is a shortcut appropriate in everyday life but not debate. If you can't make the argument yourself you shouldn't be debating a subject and I certainly won't pretend compiling a list of assertions substitutes for an actual argument. I saw Conservallectual do essentially the same thing in his gun debate btw.
Some supporters of the multiverse claim they have found real physical evidence for the multiverse. Joseph Polchinski of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Andrei Linde of Stanford University—some of the theoretical physicists who dreamed up the current model of inflation and how it leads to island universes—say the proof is encoded in our cosmos.This cosmos is huge, smooth and flat, just like inflation says it should be. “It took some time before we got used to the idea that the large size, flatness, isotropy and uniformity of the universe should not be dismissed as trivial facts of life,” Linde wrote in a paper that appeared on arXiv.org in December. “Instead of that, they should be considered as experimental data requiring an explanation, which was provided with the invention of inflation.”
Similarly, our universe seems fine tuned to be favorable to life, with its Goldilocks expansion rate that’s not too fast or too slow, an electron that’s not too big, a proton that has the exact opposite charge but the same mass as a neutron and a four-dimensional space in which we can live. If the electron or proton were, for example, one percent larger, beings could not be. What are the chances that all those properties would align to create a nice piece of real estate for biology to form and evolve?
In a universe that is, in fact, the only universe, the chances are vanishingly small. But in an eternally inflating multiverse, it is certain that one of the universes should turn out like ours. Each island universe can have different physical laws and fundamentals. Given infinite mutations, a universe on which humans can be born will be born. The multiverse actually explains why we’re here. And our existence, therefore, helps explain why the multiverse is plausible.
ADreamOfLiberty, I think your criticisms are very valid but the reasons my arguments are strange is because I wanted to try new things.
"Many physicists believe these findings give credence to the existence of a multiverse.
Following the big bang, the dispense of energy and matter created the inflation of the Universe or as Nasa states the "extremely rapid (exponential) expansion of the universe during its first few moments."
As these theories assert "when the universe grew exponentially in the first tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, some parts of space-time expanded more quickly than others" [4].
Following this idea, subsections or "bubbles" of spacetime likely were created and developed; leading to the possibility of their development into other universes. "
"it's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse," Alan Guth, an MIT theoretical physicist unaffiliated with the new study, said during a news conference Monday. "It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously" [7]"
I'm sorry but you have to be completely bonkers to say my whole argument is an appeal to authority.
I mean, did you even read?
I specifically argue that cosmic inflation models all lead to the multiverse. How can you be dishonest?
What appeals to authority? I just quoted scientific consensus, made an argument for the multiverse, and pointed out that PRO dropped it. As in, they literally did not even adress it, even when I was glitched out of a round
This is unjudgable. Let me boil it down:
Pro: There is no evidence (all his other 'arguments' for preclusion were non-sequiters, take the claim that the definition of a universe makes it impossible for example)
Con: Appeal to authority, again, and again, and a third time.
To claim someone had better arguments would be to presume any arguments landed, none did.
The idea of a multiverse multiplies causes beyond necessity which is a big no no in Occam's razor. Which is simpler, multiple universes with different laws of physics or 1 supernatural cause?
vote!
Although you may prove that a multiverse exists, you must also answer the ontological arguments:
First of all what is your definition of a universe?
How would differentiate the difference between a universe and a multiverse?
FLRW, I respect you but your argument can also be used to proven an intelligent designer, so you have to clear out all other possibilities.
One of the most successful theories of 20th century science is cosmic inflation, which preceded and set up the hot Big Bang. We also know how quantum fields generally work, and if inflation is a quantum field (which we strongly suspect it is), then there will always be more "still-inflating" space out there. Whenever and wherever inflation ends, you get a hot Big Bang. If inflation and quantum field theory are both correct, a Multiverse is a must.
Ok Novice, the debate is winning, please make the best rebuttal possible.
Something went wrong with my round.
It was not supposed to forfeit
extra link I want to add: https://biologos.org/articles/universe-or-multiverse-god-is-still-the-creator
I'm not a very patient person, so Novice, I hope you respond as soon as possible with the best argument of yours as possible.
In point 16 u meant to say “If 15 is true” rather than “if 16 is true”.
Any thoughts so far?
Multiverse: multiple universes
I advise defining your terms in the description. Right now, the movies featuring it existing could be used as a type of existence onto itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWzlQ2N6qqg