Cosmologic philosophy: multiverse (Introduction)

by dhw, Sunday, January 08, 2017, 14:10 (2876 days ago) @ David Turell

First Post

DAVID: Multiverse theory is appealing because it provides solutions to questions we cannot answer, and may never:
http://cosmos.nautil.us/feature/103/even-physicists-find-the-multiverse-faintly-disturbing

David’s comment: He is putting the best face he can on a real problem. we cannot test for the multiverse unless we find 'bump circles' in the CMB as they touch each other. None so far, and more than likely in my opinion, never. I find the concept of multiverse as nebulous as the God concept in a sense, but design is just as explanatory as multiverse. We cannot test for either. So it is take your choice, or not.

A brilliant summing up! Thank you. It amazes me that scientists who scoff at the God theory as unscientific (which it is) can regard the multiverse as scientific (which it is not). Bearing in kind that we don't know the extent of our universe or what happened before the big bang (if there was one), I don't know why the multiversers don't seem to consider the hypothesis of an infinite and eternal universe. Too simple perhaps?

Second post

QUOTE: "But all is not lost. The search for a simple all-encompassing theory has eclipsed a more enduring insight about the nature of physics. Physics is the building of an ever-changing, self-correcting description of natural phenomena. In its practice, it sets aside metaphysical expectations about the nature of reality, which have more to do with how we search for meaning as humans than with how nature actually works. In other words, physics is an expression of intellectual humility. We learn to live with ignorance and, in return, gain the ability to make progress incrementally.”

DAVID’s comment: Rather than shrug one's shoulders that we cannot know it 'all' through physics, one can consider that God is the creator of life, which is so complex, it cannot be the result of natural chance. There is more than one set of evidence to be considered to answer the question of why we exist.

The question of why we exist relates to “how we search for meaning as humans”. There is no way physics can answer this question, and there is no way any other scientific or philosophical approach can provide an answer without relying on irrational faith. Just as you find satisfaction in “God”, the atheist can find satisfaction in the claim that we got here by chance and there is no “meaning” as such. I would apply the author’s words concerning physics to this website as well: “Agnosticism is an expression of intellectual humility. We learn to live with ignorance and, in return, gain the ability to make progress incrementally.” Thanks to good folk like yourself and BBella, I can vouch for my own incremental progress!