Parallel Universes

What do you think about this topic?  I haven't done much research into it, but from what I have read in magazines such as Scientific American and other online material, it seems pretty interesting.

You know you have heard these arguments from some Christians:  "How could the universe NOT be created, when everything in the surrounding solar system is in such harmony that we are even alive?  Only a few hundred feet difference in Earth's current location and we would be living on a gas ball!"

What it sounds like, from reading about parallel universes, is that the only reason we are alive AT ALL is because this universe features that setup the Christian mentions.  What this is refuting then, is that this universe is "Special" and created specifically for us so that we can live in a nice hospitable environment.  Parallel Universe theory refutes that by stating that there is hundreds upon hundreds of different parallel universes where different variables change.  Such as, like in the Christian's example, the Earth WAS hundreds feet closer to the sun and therefore an inhospitable gas ball.  Therefore, we are NOT special, but just live in the one out of an infinite number of Parallel Universes where there happens to be the right combination of variables.  

What do you all think?  This topic is very interesting to me, so please post links to any more information you think relevant!   

This is somewhat relevant.

 My problem with the multiverse is that there's nothing at all to suggest that it exists. It's a convenient reply to the fine-tuning teleological argument but it doesn't hold any real merit.

I'm with domatron on this one. Its just a convenient means to explain the "fine-tuned nature" of the universe without invoking God... when what you are basically doing in a similar sense is still supporting the idea that it is actually "fine-tuned." And the thing is, the Earth could be quite a bit closer or farther from the Sun and life as we know it would still exist... it would have just formed a little differently, as evolution predicts.

The concept of parallel universes is pretty cool from a philosophical perspective... but from an scientific perspective, it is pretty useless.
foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]I'm with domatron on this one. Its just a convenient means to explain the "fine-tuned nature" of the universe without invoking God... when what you are basically doing in a similar sense is still supporting the idea that it is actually "fine-tuned." And the thing is, the Earth could be quite a bit closer or farther from the Sun and life as we know it would still exist... it would have just formed a little differently, as evolution predicts.

The concept of parallel universes is pretty cool from a philosophical perspective... but from an scientific perspective, it is pretty useless.
MetalGear_Ninty

That doesn't make it scientifically useful, unless the concept of alternate universes happens to contain falsifiable predictions. 

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]I'm with domatron on this one. Its just a convenient means to explain the "fine-tuned nature" of the universe without invoking God... when what you are basically doing in a similar sense is still supporting the idea that it is actually "fine-tuned." And the thing is, the Earth could be quite a bit closer or farther from the Sun and life as we know it would still exist... it would have just formed a little differently, as evolution predicts.

The concept of parallel universes is pretty cool from a philosophical perspective... but from an scientific perspective, it is pretty useless.
GabuEx

That doesn't make it scientifically useful, unless the concept of alternate universes happens to contain falsifiable predictions.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]I'm with domatron on this one. Its just a convenient means to explain the "fine-tuned nature" of the universe without invoking God... when what you are basically doing in a similar sense is still supporting the idea that it is actually "fine-tuned." And the thing is, the Earth could be quite a bit closer or farther from the Sun and life as we know it would still exist... it would have just formed a little differently, as evolution predicts.

The concept of parallel universes is pretty cool from a philosophical perspective... but from an scientific perspective, it is pretty useless.
GabuEx

That doesn't make it scientifically useful, unless the concept of alternate universes happens to contain falsifiable predictions. 

Scientists are interested in what is real and what is not period, so I don't necessarily understand the argument.   If there are parallel universes, there will be something useful derived from that knowledge.  You just can't predict what, as it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt yet.

I agree that isn't really scientific at the moment, but very theoretical; I'm just saying that you can't dismiss the concept as atheist fantasy seeing as many notable theoretical physicists seem to lean towards the idea.MetalGear_Ninty

Why can't we?

Unless it contains falsifiable predictions, then it is nothing as far as science is concerned - it could be true or it could not be true, but until it is established what ramifications its being true would have on our universe, it is nothing more than an idea that is no better than any others.  The identities of those who feel an idea has merit is utterly irrelevant in science.

Scientists are interested in what is real and what is not period, so I don't necessarily understand the argument.   If there are parallel universes, there will be something useful derived from that knowledge.  You just can't predict what, as it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt yet.

SimpJee

Yes, scientists are interested in what is real and what is not - and until a hypothesis has some established testable and falsifiable predictions that it makes, we have no idea whether or not it's true.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]I agree that isn't really scientific at the moment, but very theoretical; I'm just saying that you can't dismiss the concept as atheist fantasy seeing as many notable theoretical physicists seem to lean towards the idea.GabuEx

Why can't we?

Unless it contains falsifiable predictions, then it is nothing as far as science is concerned - it could be true or it could not be true, but until it is established what ramifications its being true would have on our universe, it is nothing more than an idea that is no better than any others. The identities of those who feel an idea has merit is utterly irrelevant in science.

You can say that if you want, however I'm just saying that there are people who know far, far, far, far more than you do about theoretical physics who disagree with you.

And whilst the discipline of science is empircally based, is not to say that the professionals don't have better clue as to what's going on then the non-professionals.

You can say that if you want, however I'm just saying that there are people who know far, far, far, far more than you do about theoretical physics who disagree with you.

And whilst the discipline of science is empircally based, is not to say that the professionals don't have better clue as to what's going on then the non-professionals.

MetalGear_Ninty

What matters is not who supports a scientific hypothesis, but why they support it.  If they support it because it makes falsifiable predictions (which presumably they feel would be proven true) that could be verified such that its truth could be established as a likelihood, then that's one thing.  If they support it just because they think it's an interesting idea but have no real reason to believe that it's actually true, then all the Ph.Ds and credentials in the world aren't going to change that fact.

Saying "look at these scientists who support this idea" in an attempt to assert its possibility as truth is just a plain cut-and-dried appeal to authority fallacy. 

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

You can say that if you want, however I'm just saying that there are people who know far, far, far, far more than you do about theoretical physics who disagree with you.

And whilst the discipline of science is empircally based, is not to say that the professionals don't have better clue as to what's going on then the non-professionals.

GabuEx

What matters is not who supports a scientific hypothesis, but why they support it. If they support it because it makes falsifiable predictions (which presumably they feel would be proven true) that could be verified such that its truth could be established as a likelihood, then that's one thing. If they support it just because they think it's an interesting idea but have no real reason to believe that it's actually true, then all the Ph.Ds and credentials in the world aren't going to change that fact.

Saying "look at these scientists who support this idea" in an attempt to assert its possibility as truth is just a plain cut-and-dried appeal to authority fallacy.

What yous guys is doing is equivalent to me saying: "well oh well, these theists are bound to reject the parallel universe hypothesis because it doesn't fall into their pretty little picture of how they think the universe works" of course that is ridiculous, and is pretty much equivalent to what you guys are doing.

The reason these guys support the hypothesis is because they know enough cosmology to make a prediction/ hypothesis of the state of the universe. Of course they don't just support the hypothesis just because they like the idea; I'm sure there is perfectly good reason for the to do so. And no it is not an appeal to authority fallacy because a) I'm not asserting that the hypothesis is true and B) my authority is valid.

What yous guys is doing is equivalent to me saying: "well oh well, these theists are bound to reject the parallel universe hypothesis because it doesn't fall into their pretty little picture of how they think the universe works" of course that is ridiculous, and is pretty much equivalent to what you guys are doing.MetalGear_Ninty

You're sure there is perfectly good reason for them to do so - what is that reason?

Flat-out assuming that people have good reason to think something simply because of their position is plainly an appeal to authority fallacy.  That's practically the definition of an appeal to authority: "These people say X, and they know things about the domain in which X exists, so X is true."  X is found to be true because of the evidence in its favor, not due to the people who think it's true.  The onus is on you to present the reasons for why these people support the idea, and then let the facts stand or fall on their own merit.

You're sure there is perfectly good reason for them to do so - what is that reason?

Flat-out assuming that people have good reason to think something simply because of their position is plainly an appeal to authority fallacy.  That's practically the definition of an appeal to authority: "These people say X, and they know things about the domain in which X exists, so X is true."  X is found to be true because of the evidence in its favor, not due to the people who think it's true.  The onus is on you to present the reasons for why these people support the idea, and then let the facts stand or fall on their own merit.

GabuEx

Max Tegmark created a taxonomy of universes beyond the observable. It follows that there are various interpretations of parallel universes and various reasonings for proposing them.

To my mind, religious belief is the best example of an "appeal to authority" fallacy.

Max Tegmark created a taxonomy of universes beyond the observable. It follows that there are various interpretations of parallel universes and various reasonings for proposing them.

RationalAtheist

That link doesn't seem to work, and attempting to quote it is causing GameSpot to yell at me.

To my mind, religious belief is the best example of an "appeal to authority" fallacy.

RationalAtheist

I don't see anybody here discussing religious belief, do you? :P

I find the idea to be very entertaining fodder in the realm of science fiction, such as Star Trek.  Star Trek has also tackled other such sci-fi concepts as Tachyon particles, FTL travel, time travel, teleportation, force fields, Dyson Spheres, alien civilizations, and a whole host of other highly entertaining but still very much sci-fi concepts.  And until these concepts can be done in real life, science fiction they shall remain. 

For the sake of this topic though, if you want a serious presentation on this topic, you can go here .  It's five parts, and the link is only to part one.  Basically, the idea of parallel universe is derived from the strange concepts found in Quantum Mechanics.

They've actually catagorized types of parallel universes.  Here's a quick summation of the four levels.

Level 1: The universe is infinitely big.  If you travel far enough in any direction in the universe, you will find another earth exactly like our own. 

Level 2: There are infinite number of universes.  The idea is that a universe expands so much, it breaks into smaller pieces and those universes expand and repeat the process.

Level 3: The Mini-Worlds Interpretation, which basically says that for every possibility that can happen, there is a universe where it did happen.  These universes basically exists on top of each other in a different quantum frequency.

Level 4: It is said to be the Ultimate Ensemble and related to the Theory of Everything.  I honetly don't quite get this one, but it seems to imply that it's all of the above combined.

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]The reason these guys support the hypothesis is because they know enough cosmology to make a prediction/ hypothesis of the state of the universe. Of course they don't just support the hypothesis just because they like the idea; I'm sure there is perfectly good reason for the to do so. And no it is not an appeal to authority fallacy because a) I'm not asserting that the hypothesis is true and B) my authority is valid.

What yous guys is doing is equivalent to me saying: "well oh well, these theists are bound to reject the parallel universe hypothesis because it doesn't fall into their pretty little picture of how they think the universe works" of course that is ridiculous, and is pretty much equivalent to what you guys are doing.GabuEx

You're sure there is perfectly good reason for them to do so - what is that reason?

Flat-out assuming that people have good reason to think something simply because of their position is plainly an appeal to authority fallacy. That's practically the definition of an appeal to authority: "These people say X, and they know things about the domain in which X exists, so X is true." X is found to be true because of the evidence in its favor, not due to the people who think it's true. The onus is on you to present the reasons for why these people support the idea, and then let the facts stand or fall on their own merit.

I have never said that the fact that scientists supports X makes X true; all I'm saying is the fact that scientists support X means that X is not atheist fan****.

http://www.theblogofscience.com/evidence-for-a-parallel-universe/

Here is some evidence anyway.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

To my mind, religious belief is the best example of an "appeal to authority" fallacy.

GabuEx

I don't see anybody here discussing religious belief, do you? :P

Complete strawman you've got there.

I have never said that the fact that scientists supports X makes X true; all I'm saying is the fact that scientists support X means that X is not atheist fan****, which you and other purport it to be.

MetalGear_Ninty

You nonetheless said, and I quote, that "the reason these guys support the hypothesis is because they know enough cosmology to make a prediction/ hypothesis of the state of the universe" and then that you were "sure there is perfectly good reason for them to do so" without providing any justification for this statement beyond their credentials.  I wasn't stating that you asserted that it is true, I was only presenting the format for an appeal to authority fallacy and then showing how your statements seemed to fit the model awfully well.  In retrospect, I suppose I slightly misspoke there, but I remain behind the bulk of my post.

http://www.theblogofscience.com/evidence-for-a-parallel-universe/

Here is some evidence anyway.

MetalGear_Ninty

See, that wasn't so hard. :P

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"]

Complete strawman you've got there.

I have never said that the fact that scientists supports X makes X true; all I'm saying is the fact that scientists support X means that X is not atheist fan****, which you and other purport it to be.

GabuEx

You nonetheless said, and I quote, that "the reason these guys support the hypothesis is because they know enough cosmology to make a prediction/ hypothesis of the state of the universe" and then that you were "sure there is perfectly good reason for them to do so" without providing any justification for this statement beyond their credentials. I wasn't stating that you asserted that it is true, I was only presenting the format for an appeal to authority fallacy and then showing how your statements seemed to fit the model awfully well. In retrospect, I suppose I slightly misspoke there, but I remain behind the bulk of my post.

But at the end of the day, I've still shown how the idea of parallel universes isn't just atheist fantasy.:P

That link doesn't seem to work, and attempting to quote it is causing GameSpot to yell at me.

GabuEx

Sorry! Thankfully you got the name so were able to Google it yourself. It did go to a page anchor here, with the word c-l-a-s-s in it.

 

I don't see anybody here discussing religious belief, do you? :P

GabuEx

Yup, I do sometimes. You too.

Wasnt spontaneous generation a conveneint answer to "intelligent creation"??

A great no. of biologists believed in spontaneous generation if I am not wrong. A layman could have thrown away the theory as fantasy but yet the more "knowledgable" ones seemed to believe in it. We all know how this turned out, neither were the scientists right and nor the religious people. There was a truth far more deeper than anyone had thought about.;)

Wasnt spontaneous generation a conveneint answer to "intelligent creation"??

A great no. of biologists believed in spontaneous generation if I am not wrong. A layman could have thrown away the theory as fantasy but yet the more "knowledgable" ones seemed to believe in it. We all know how this turned out, neither were the scientists right and nor the religious people. There was a truth far more deeper than anyone had thought about.;)

Gambler_3

I'm not so much throwing parallel universes away as I am acknowledging that it has nothing going for it that would provoke positive belief at the moment. I'm an agnostic disbeliever on the matter not a strong disbeliever.

[QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

Wasnt spontaneous generation a conveneint answer to "intelligent creation"??

A great no. of biologists believed in spontaneous generation if I am not wrong. A layman could have thrown away the theory as fantasy but yet the more "knowledgable" ones seemed to believe in it. We all know how this turned out, neither were the scientists right and nor the religious people. There was a truth far more deeper than anyone had thought about.;)

domatron23

I'm not so much throwing parallel universes away as I am acknowledging that it has nothing going for it that would provoke positive belief at the moment. I'm an agnostic disbeliever on the matter not a strong disbeliever.

How much have you read into it though?  Not saying that I have much either, just that maybe before we say it "has nothing going for it" that we might look into it a little deeper.  Just browsing through articles, there are a few written by well known scientists at Cambridge, Harvard, etc. 

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

Wasnt spontaneous generation a conveneint answer to "intelligent creation"??

A great no. of biologists believed in spontaneous generation if I am not wrong. A layman could have thrown away the theory as fantasy but yet the more "knowledgable" ones seemed to believe in it. We all know how this turned out, neither were the scientists right and nor the religious people. There was a truth far more deeper than anyone had thought about.;)

SimpJee

I'm not so much throwing parallel universes away as I am acknowledging that it has nothing going for it that would provoke positive belief at the moment. I'm an agnostic disbeliever on the matter not a strong disbeliever.

How much have you read into it though?  Not saying that I have much either, just that maybe before we say it "has nothing going for it" that we might look into it a little deeper.  Just browsing through articles, there are a few written by well known scientists at Cambridge, Harvard, etc. 

I hereby qualify my remark with an "as far as I know" on the end. MGN did provide a link earlier on which purported to have evidence but as I am happy in my ignorance I haven't clicked on it.

[QUOTE="SimpJee"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Gambler_3"]

Wasnt spontaneous generation a conveneint answer to "intelligent creation"??

A great no. of biologists believed in spontaneous generation if I am not wrong. A layman could have thrown away the theory as fantasy but yet the more "knowledgable" ones seemed to believe in it. We all know how this turned out, neither were the scientists right and nor the religious people. There was a truth far more deeper than anyone had thought about.;)

domatron23

I'm not so much throwing parallel universes away as I am acknowledging that it has nothing going for it that would provoke positive belief at the moment. I'm an agnostic disbeliever on the matter not a strong disbeliever.

How much have you read into it though?  Not saying that I have much either, just that maybe before we say it "has nothing going for it" that we might look into it a little deeper.  Just browsing through articles, there are a few written by well known scientists at Cambridge, Harvard, etc. 

I hereby qualify my remark with an "as far as I know" on the end. MGN did provide a link earlier on which purported to have evidence but as I am happy in my ignorance I haven't clicked on it.

Ignorance is bliss. ;) itsTolkien_time

[QUOTE="itsTolkien_time"]Ignorance is bliss. ;) domatron23

"The unexamined life is not worth living."

- Socrates

"The opinions and ideas expressed in the above quotation are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of the establishment."

- domatron23

I hereby qualify my remark with an "as far as I know" on the end. MGN did provide a link earlier on which purported to have evidence but as I am happy in my ignorance I haven't clicked on it.

domatron23

That's what the religious say, fail :P

Allright allright I read the darned link and it was pretty interesting. It sounds like this is only one half of a verified prediction though. According to wikipedia and the link the parallel universe model predicts two giant voids rather than one. Now granted I don't understand why we would expect two massive cold spots, one for each hemisphere, if the multiverse hypothesis is correct (something to do with quantum entanglement) so this hasn't really done much to persuade me. It seems as if there could well be an alternative explanation for the void as well so even if this is evidence for parallel universes it's not exactly unambiguous. 

Nevertheless it's a good start I suppose. My life is hereby examined and all the more worth living.

I'm of the belief that this universe is all there is. I'm open to being wrong, but I'll go to my deathbed thinking I'm right, knowing that such a question will likely not be answered satisfactory within my lifetime.

Allright allright I read the darned link and it was pretty interesting. It sounds like this is only one half of a verified prediction though. According to wikipedia and the link the parallel universe model predicts two giant voids rather than one. Now granted I don't understand why we would expect two massive cold spots, one for each hemisphere, if the multiverse hypothesis is correct (something to do with quantum entanglement) so this hasn't really done much to persuade me. It seems as if there could well be an alternative explanation for the void as well so even if this is evidence for parallel universes it's not exactly unambiguous. 

Nevertheless it's a good start I suppose. My life is hereby examined and all the more worth living.

domatron23

The link that I've tried (and failed twice due to sheer idiocy and some difficulty with the editor - sorry GabuEx) to include in this thread http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse says Max Tegmark cl@ssified at least 4 levels of universe beyond our observation. So many different reasons exist for believing these hypotheses, from M theory to "hubble volumes".