Cosmologic philosophy: multiverse (Introduction)

by David Turell , Sunday, January 08, 2017, 21:24 (2876 days ago) @ dhw

dhw: 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?

Because their paradigm changed and the Big Bang is now considered a beginning of our universe. During Einstein's early years the universe was thought to be fixed and eternal which is why he ignored the cosmologic constant required by his theory, and later accepted it.

Second post

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.

dhw: 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!

My view is we have to find some 'meaning' for our individual lives and live by those precepts. I don't find life pointless, a concept Steven Weinberg alluded to.