4 ms·

Neither is "multiverse". That's just as untestable and unverifyable and mysterious as God.

by ythn 9y ago

saagarjha 9y ago
Sure, but it is provides an explanation that is based on prior scientific work, namely statistics, rather than religion. But yes, your argument is valid: this theory is difficult to test. Many people reject anthropic arguments because they feel that they don't provide any testable answers.
bufferoverflow 9y ago
We don't know if either hypothesis is testable. Multiverse is not as mysterious as "god did it" (a.k.a magic), it's a very specific hypothesis. You can "explain" absolutely anything with god/magic, and many religious people do. Try that with multiverse. It doesn't work.
- ythn 9y ago
  > Try that with multiverse. It doesn't work. "Life arose because there is an infinite multiverse and we just happened to be in one of the infinite universes where both the cosmological constants that allow life to be possible are the correct values and chemicals randomly combined on the right planet to allow increasingly complex structures to evolve." "The parting of the red sea story happened because there is an infinite multiverse and we just happened to be in the one where atmospheric turbulence whipped up a windstorm sufficiently powerful to move water in the red sea and someone documented it" "Infinite Multiverse" means you can explain away any improbable event with "well, there are infinite universes so the probability actually approaches 1 across all universes"
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Multiverse is not as mysterious as "god did it" (a.k.a magic), it's a very specific hypothesis. If you can test the existence of another “universe”, it's really the same universe. Plus, even if you have a model of a multiverse in which the component universes have variation on particular axes, you can still ask why you have such a well-constructed set of parameters such that varying them will allow life somewhere on the multiverse. Multiverse is not only a non-terrible hypothesis, it's one that doesn't do anything but kick the problem it is meant to explain one step further down the road without transforming it's general shape.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Multiverse is not only a non-terrible hypothesis, Missed the edit window, but non-testable, not non-terrible.
nimchimpsky 9y ago
Keep sipping that sweet Kool aid.
Veelox 9y ago
I am going to assume you are a theist, at least in the US, theists have a reputation for being ignorant, self-righteous, and hypocritical (in the sense they talk about love but don't act on it). If you care about improving the general reputation of theists I suggest that you make an effort to be intellectually humble, open to evidence, compassionate, kind, and not belligerent.

Neither is "multiverse". That's just as untestable and unverifyable and mysterious as God.

by ythn 9y ago

Neither is "multiverse". That's just as untestable and unverifyable and mysterious as God.

Sure, but it is provides an explanation that is based on prior scientific work, namely statistics, rather than religion. But yes, your argument is valid: this theory is difficult to test. Many people reject anthropic arguments because they feel that they don't provide any testable answers.

bufferoverflow 9y ago

We don't know if either hypothesis is testable. Multiverse is not as mysterious as "god did it" (a.k.a magic), it's a very specific hypothesis. You can "explain" absolutely anything with god/magic, and many religious people do. Try that with multiverse. It doesn't work.

ythn 9y ago
> Try that with multiverse. It doesn't work. "Life arose because there is an infinite multiverse and we just happened to be in one of the infinite universes where both the cosmological constants that allow life to be possible are the correct values and chemicals randomly combined on the right planet to allow increasingly complex structures to evolve." "The parting of the red sea story happened because there is an infinite multiverse and we just happened to be in the one where atmospheric turbulence whipped up a windstorm sufficiently powerful to move water in the red sea and someone documented it" "Infinite Multiverse" means you can explain away any improbable event with "well, there are infinite universes so the probability actually approaches 1 across all universes"
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Multiverse is not as mysterious as "god did it" (a.k.a magic), it's a very specific hypothesis. If you can test the existence of another “universe”, it's really the same universe. Plus, even if you have a model of a multiverse in which the component universes have variation on particular axes, you can still ask why you have such a well-constructed set of parameters such that varying them will allow life somewhere on the multiverse. Multiverse is not only a non-terrible hypothesis, it's one that doesn't do anything but kick the problem it is meant to explain one step further down the road without transforming it's general shape.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Multiverse is not only a non-terrible hypothesis, Missed the edit window, but non-testable, not non-terrible.

nimchimpsky 9y ago

Keep sipping that sweet Kool aid.

Veelox 9y ago

I am going to assume you are a theist, at least in the US, theists have a reputation for being ignorant, self-righteous, and hypocritical (in the sense they talk about love but don't act on it). If you care about improving the general reputation of theists I suggest that you make an effort to be intellectually humble, open to evidence, compassionate, kind, and not belligerent.