Religion. The evolution, creation and everything in between megathread

[dirtyape]

Lol, multiverse theory is basically religion, its not science.

I'd say it's more a hypothesis until it can be tested empirically. Comparing it to religion and claiming it is not science seems like a narrow minded sensationalism to me.

One could claim that the big bang theory was basically a religion. This would actually make better sense considering many blindly believe it as the beginning of the universe.

[Zarkov]

Good lord.

Planet of the Apes.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Good lord.

Planet of the Apes.

It was Earth after all.

[Blob_ZPS]

If its not falsifiable then its not really scientific.
The big bang has evidence for it, expansion of the universe etc.... although the exact details of how it happened, and what happened in the very beginning are unclear.
I agree with you about it being theoreitcal, but much like what goes on in the middle of a black hole, even if we can say with some confidence what we think is going on, its really just theoretical.

I would say that multi-verse theory is an interesting idea, but until it can be falsified and until it answers some key problems, I class it in a similar area to religion, that murky soup of ideas that may make sense but aren't (yet) scientific called metaphysics.
My main problem with multiverse theory is that, whenever there is a chance for something else to occur the universe splits. According to quantum mechanics this will happen for anything, every infinitesimal amount of time an infinite amount of probabilistic events occur.
So the universe would quickly diverge and split into an incomprehensible amount of other universe all the time.
Which is fine because even if we can't comprehend it doesnt mean its not what happens, but heres the rub:
Where does the energy to fill these universe come from?
Riddle me this.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

Which is fine because even if we can't comprehend it doesnt mean its not what happens, but heres the rub:
Where does the energy to fill these universe come from?
Riddle me this.

Well now your asking a scientific question about a metaphysical concept.

But on that note, where does all the energy come from to fill this universe?

[Blob_ZPS]

Which is fine because even if we can't comprehend it doesnt mean its not what happens, but heres the rub:
Where does the energy to fill these universe come from?
Riddle me this.

Well now your asking a scientific question about a metaphysical concept.

But on that note, where this all the energy come from to fill this universe?

Haha it's existed for as long as time has existed, ergo it has existed forever.

[dirtyape]

If its not falsifiable then its not really scientific.
The big bang has evidence for it, expansion of the universe etc.... although the exact details of how it happened, and what happened in the very beginning are unclear.
I agree with you about it being theoreitcal, but much like what goes on in the middle of a black hole, even if we can say with some confidence what we think is going on, its really just theoretical.

I would say that multi-verse theory is an interesting idea, but until it can be falsified and until it answers some key problems, I class it in a similar area to religion, that murky soup of ideas that may make sense but aren't (yet) scientific called metaphysics.
My main problem with multiverse theory is that, whenever there is a chance for something else to occur the universe splits. According to quantum mechanics this will happen for anything, every infinitesimal amount of time an infinite amount of probabilistic events occur.
So the universe would quickly diverge and split into an incomprehensible amount of other universe all the time.
Which is fine because even if we can't comprehend it doesnt mean its not what happens, but heres the rub:
Where does the energy to fill these universe come from?
Riddle me this.

Just because the theory has yet to make any experimental predictions and cannot be falsified does not mean that it will always be so. To write the idea off as "basicly religion" and likening it's workings to the internal structure of a singularity, i.e. undefined, is almost contemptible imo. While it may not be the GUT, at the least it could provide insight, knowledge and inspiration.


Regarding the big bang, it relies on the universe being isotropic and homogeneous, this is it's assumption. By that logic it is also not falsifiable as we can never prove that the universe is or is not so. We will always be limited to our light horizon. It is entirely possible, and arguably probable, that what is referred to as "the big bang" was in reality "a big bang" such as the collision of two galactic hyper clusters. What is worse, that when the current set of physics makes a mockery of the theory by PROVING that the universe cannot not behave the way described, "fudge factors" such as dark matter and dark energy are introduced in order to make things work. Things that are not currently observable. That's not exactly good science either.

And lets not forget the anomalies, spiral galaxies existing with red shifts that should place them at distances where only early globular galaxies should exist. This is observable evidence that suggests that the theory is a bit messed up, and most every cosmologist should be aware of these issues. Fact is, we don't really "know" if the universe started with a big bang, so it should still be viewed objectively, and not blindly believed by the masses. Also, it is very similar and sits nicely with the religious concept of creation, and it has room for a creator although he has been relegated from being involved with the universe to being the one who set the initial values that allowed everything to happen according to it's design. This cannot be disproven. Is it any surprise that the source of the big bang theory was a priest?


And finally the question regarding where the energy comes from to "fill" the additional universes, it is the same energy. The multiverse concept is not like you have to create an entirely new 4 dimensional space with each deviation and then have to populate it with completely new energy. Looking at it in such a manner is basically the limitation of human consciousness telling you the future is different from the past. It is the same energy observed from a different perspective, a different point in a 5 dimensional space for example. The energy is already there in future probable universes, just that to us it hasn't "happened" yet because our timeslice of reality isn't there yet.

It is not a very easy thing to visualise.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

I agree with Dirtyape here.

We basically know very very little about the universe.

Our universe consists of 71.3% of dark energy, which basically means we don't know jack about 71.3% of the universe.

[Tiwaking!]

Haha it's existed for as long as time has existed, ergo it has existed forever.

Time didnt exist before time existed.

Our universe consists of 71.3% of dark energy, which basically means we don't know jack about 71.3% of the universe.

Dark energy doesnt exist.

For starters: 'Prove it' has become increasingly difficult and 'disprove it' even more so. Generally: Something with an effect will have an effect. Something which may have an effect if it has an effect? Is that Dark Energy?

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

The effect is the acceleration of the universe.

But we don't know yet what's causing it.

[Blob_ZPS]

Those theories (big bang/dark energy etc...) are at least based on some level of observations, rather than imagination.

Just to be clear, we are defining science the same way right?
See:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scientific_method

[dirtyape]

The atom was imagination for 2600 years. To make a paradigm shift in science one sometimes needs to gamble with philosophy.

Observations contradict the big bang as a theory. Dark energy and dark matter were introduced in order to make observations work with standard theory. They are not observable and are essentially imaginary, their only purpose is to fix a theory that broke.

I fail to see the difference.

Call string theory a beta, it's still in development. And it's not a theology, it's a mathematical theory that describes a model of the universe.

[Blob_ZPS]

The atom was imagination for 2600 years. To make a paradigm shift in science one sometimes needs to gamble with philosophy.

Observations contradict the big bang as a theory. Dark energy and dark matter were introduced in order to make observations work with standard theory. They are not observable and are essentially imaginary, their only purpose is to fix a theory that broke.

I fail to see the difference.

Call string theory a beta, it's still in development. And it's not a theology, it's a mathematical theory that describes a model of the universe.

I agree with you in a sense, the theories may be somewhat logical, they may even be right but they are not as of yet scientific.
Im drawing a line in the sand, on one side is philosophy and on the other is science.
Sometimes this line can become blurred thats why we must be careful not to equivocate the meaning of what science is.
Scientific method:A method of discovering knowledge about the natural world based in making falsifiable predictions (hypotheses), testing them empirically, and developing peer-reviewed theories that best explain the known data

All im saying is that these theories, although they may or may not be shown to be right or wrong, are on the philosophy side until otherwise proven.

I often try to think about problems in different ways, and toy with thought experiments but I wouldn't claim these wild speculations to be scientific in any way shape or form until I could devise an experiment to verify their validity.


One interesting example is the idea of quantum immortality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality
Probably BS but a neat idea nonetheless, I'll let you know if it's right in 1000 years, according to that theory i should still be alive haha.


On a side note, although string theory is a useful mathemtical tool, I dont think we can call it the magic bullet of unified theory, as we cannot test it emprically.

[dirtyape]

You tried to diminish the theory be claiming it was theological. That is untrue and misleading. You tried to say that because such a thing is so very hard to prove that it is proof that it does not exist, until proven otherwise.

No one has claimed it is a scientific theory. It has been said that it is a work in progress, and with ideas of this magnitude it may take decades to become falsifiable, if ever. This has become the nature of physics today. Quantum field theory is mostly mathematical and only barely falsifiable.

I have thought about quantum immortality in the past although I was not aware it had a name. The idea came after I nearly had a car accident and I realised that in a multiverse I would have had the accident and died, but my consciousness could never perceive that universe, ergo, I could only perceive universes in which I survived, ergo, immortality. If it's possible to exist, you will continue to exist pretty much sums that up. Although I wouldn't recommend testing the theory.

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

One interesting example is the idea of quantum immortality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality
Probably BS but a neat idea nonetheless, I'll let you know if it's right in 1000 years, according to that theory i should still be alive haha.

Hahah, that is a pretty awesome idea.

But you won't be able you let me know, because you'll be dead in my universe, and I'll be dead in yours.

But effectively everyone lives forever in their own universe.

[Spoonguard]

One interesting example is the idea of quantum immortality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality
Probably BS but a neat idea nonetheless, I'll let you know if it's right in 1000 years, according to that theory i should still be alive haha.

Hahah, that is a pretty awesome idea.

But you won't be able you let me know, because you'll be dead in my universe, and I'll be dead in yours.

But effectively everyone lives forever in their own universe.

The universe may as well not exist outside of your lifetime

but, then, also, what do you know about your lifetime? Can you prove that you did not come into existence a moment ago, and will vanish in the next instant?

[Blob_ZPS]

One interesting example is the idea of quantum immortality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality
Probably BS but a neat idea nonetheless, I'll let you know if it's right in 1000 years, according to that theory i should still be alive haha.

Hahah, that is a pretty awesome idea.

But you won't be able you let me know, because you'll be dead in my universe, and I'll be dead in yours.

But effectively everyone lives forever in their own universe.

Yeah exactly, its real trippy.
One could make the argument that no one has lived past 200 years old yet, but according to that theory you would be the first person haha

[Apostrophe Spacemonkey]

From wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett#Death_and_legacy

Everett, who believed in quantum immortality, died suddenly

I lol'd.


EDIT: omg, it's worse

Everett's daughter, Elizabeth, suffered from manic depression and committed suicide in 1996 (saying in her suicide note that she was going to a parallel universe to be with her father),

[Dr Woomanchu]

This isn't specifically religion related, but as a debunk of crackpot theories is superb

[dirtyape]

That's amusing, but the cost/difficulty to develop the technology to exploit the crazy phenomenon must still compete with existing techniques, and if there is no financial benefit from developing that technology then it will not be developed. So it doesn't really work like that.

In fact that's like saying, the fact that no one has thought of a GUT means that a GUT doesn't exist because if it did then in a capitalist society someone would have thought of it by now and they'd be using it to make hover cars.

[Dr Woomanchu]

All the things listed are "old" wisdom. If there was anything to develop it would have happened a long time ago

[dirtyape]

I was more getting at the logic of the precept: If it can't be financially exploited it doesn't exist was the fallacious implication

[Dr Woomanchu]

I think it's a reasonable argument to put forward, if not conclusive. It's open to rebuttal of the specifics.

[BerG]

Come on guys.

Go back and read page one of this thread, it is awesome.

Now we are down to mindless spam.

Lets at least keep this thread clean.

[dirtyape]

Agree, someone needs to tidy this up. This thread is not for jibber jabber