Soleron said:
Slimebeast said:
Soleron said:
The multiverse theory is physically sound. I'm not going to say whether I think it is correct or what bearing it has on the validity of evolution/ID, but know that many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (and ALL of them are valid and equally justified) postulate either multiple universes with different physical constants, or many-worlds with wavefunction collapse creating perpendicular realities. None of this is weird, an there is far weider stuff in QM that is 100% certain, like time travel, entanglement, the uncertainty principle and the violation of Bell's inequality.
Actually, multiple universes are the best way to get around much worse problems. The main alternative to it is that the human mind is special and retroactively causes the universe to exist by collapsing the wavefunction backwards in time. And some well-respected physicists believe that.
|
I don't like replies like this, I've seen them so many times. Use of scientific tech speech that's mostly confusing and spins off the subject and with the undertone of making it sound like it's perfectly believable (perhaps it wasn't your intention, and you felt you had to be specific to avoid misunderstandings, so no offence).
I started by saying or hinting (to The_vagabond7) that the multiverse theory is an invention to solve the problem of the first cause of our universe. With bizarre implications - and that is indeed weird.
Soleron, by your post you only added that the multiverse theory is also used to address the problem of materia on the quantum level not behaving as it "should be", as expected in classical theory.
Can't you really see the spin in both cases? The essence of the problem is the same.
And how on earth can you say "None of this is weird, and there is far weider stuff in QM that is 100% certain"? It's circular reasoning - the observations are weird (that materia doesn't behave as expected) but by inventing a weird theory to explain it (multiverse) it ain't weird anymore.
|
The intention of my reply was to show that the multiverse theory isn't "crazy" and is one of the leading theories in theoretical physics. I wasn't commenting on the 'first cause' debate so feel free to attack that.
I was being specific and technical to show why it is plausible (if you would like me to expand that explanation I will gladly do so). I'm not trying to 'spin' in any direction; I'm just trying to show it is acceptable to refer to it in an argument. I may or may not agree with what it is being used to argue for.
|
Ok, I understand what you're saying.
Anyway, I'm very well aware of that multiverse isn't regarded as "crazy", and it's currently the big thing of theoretical cosmologists and whatnot. It's really the "in" thing.
But IMO multiverse is crazy, and due to it being so hip and all I think people (atheists) buy it without thinking how unbelievable it really is, and they lack the self-chritizism to compare the multiverse theory to the God concept and realize that it's also a belief based on blind faith.
