Nice try ...
If you review my comments in this thread, I most carefully neglected to comment upon the so-called ‘Multi-verse theory’ and restricted myself to ONLY the flawed arguments y’all were tossing around.
I am a retired engineer with considerable expertise in Computer Systems design and implementation. I can discuss many topics in my field with assurance that I am competent and well enough informed in both the underlying technology and methods for applying that technology. On such topics, I am happy to assert opinions, armed with the knowledge that what I know and how I express myself are correct and proceed from demonstrated competence.
I have SOME exposure to the topic y’all have been batting about here, enough to recognize the vast distance between what you THINK you know and what you actually don’t know, at all.
To begin with, your ‘argument’ presupposes many things which simply aren’t ‘true’. There is NO ‘Multi-verse theory’, as you describe it. There ARE a number of conjectures and models describing the nature of ‘reality’ and the natural history of the Universe which attempt to incorporate features like ‘infinity’, the interaction of matter and various forces, the nature of time and so forth.
None of these are ‘theories’. A ‘theory’, in correct usage, has certain characteristics or it is merely a shambles. A theory, to be useful, MUST incorporate everything about the topic it addresses that we already KNOW to be true — demonstrated, repeatable according to known methods and / or principles and, arguably, self-consistent.
This structure has two further characteristics without which it is useless and pointless to pursue. It MUST make predictions that are unambiguous and can be verified. It MUST also be ‘falsifiable’ — in other words, if any part of it can be demonstrated to fail, as advertised, or if any measurement or demonstration required by it’s predictions fail to match up, we deem the ‘theory’ to have ‘failed’ or been disproven.
It general, a ‘theory’ CAN fail or be proven / demonstrated to be inadequate. A ‘theory’ CANNOT be deemed ‘true’ or ‘false’. It can only serve as a stepping stone to further ‘theorizing’ and the attempt to acquire more knowledge or a greater understanding within the limited scope to which it applies.
Some ‘theories’ are small in scope and more easily demonstrated to be useful. Other ‘theories’ are so grand in scope that they exceed our present ability to construct or conduct meaningful observations or demonstrations. Until our knowledge or capabilities expand to encompass them, they must remain ‘conjectures’ — speculation, guesses, unrealized possibilities.
Simply put, a ‘theory’ is NOT something you can loosely throw out in conversation and demand agreement — is it ‘true’ or is it ‘false’.
As you seem to use it, the ‘Multi-verse’ addresses the notion that a single Universe is insufficient to contain all the possible components, events, information and whatever other ‘stuff’ CAN POSSIBLY exist. This assumes that every possible event or outcome of the interaction of all possible combinations of matter, energy or whatever MUST somehow be permitted to occur, somehow, someplace, sometime.
The argument proceeds by ‘somehow’ replicating a single Universe which already encompasses everything that exists into multiple similar Universes also containing everything that already exists but subtly different due to the observation that something that existed or occurred in one somehow doesn’t exist or occur in the same state in another. Expand the scope of this an infinite number of times and you obtain an infinite number Universes in an infinite number of configurations.
And, oh, by the way, NONE of these infinite Universe have ANY contact, overlap or whatever with ANY of the others. You cannot observe ANYTHING that happens outside of your particular Universe. It’s as though none of the other Universes actually even exist, for all you can observe. You cannot observe or demonstrate whether or not there is ANYTHING outside of the Universe you happen to occupy.
The ‘Multi-verse’ thus attempts to describe a condition that is, by it’s own definition, unknowable, unmeasurable, intangible and beyond the scope of any conceivable method of observation or demonstration. Therefore, we CANNOT test any feature of existence accessible to us to determine whether or not this class of conjectures ‘means’ anything. We cannot use it to make any predictions; we cannot test these non-existent predictions in an attempt to ‘falsify’ them; we cannot ‘do’ or ‘conclude’ ANYTHING meaningful about this conjecture.
Do I think it’s ‘false’ ? I think it’s meaningless to invest any effort or energy into this concept until or unless you have anything more to offer than free-floating speculation and a massive overdose of wish-fulfillment.
One Man’s Opinion
21stCenturion
You’re saying the multiple universe idea is not falsifiable empirically—in an a posteriori fashion—therefore we cannot really discuss it in a meaningful way. But the empirical is not all inclusive.
I’m saying the idea is falsifiable logically—that is, in an a priori sense. This sort of context is epistemologically valid, thus meaningful. Logic is the greater scope—logic encompasses empiricism. Not the other way around.
As for nature of the multiple universe idea, we should look at its origin. There are strong indications that it arose in the form of a psychologically motivated response by secular/atheist scientists to the discovery of physical evidence establishing the truth of the Big Bang. The Big Bang was a major refutation of the conventional view of many scientists who were educated during the first half of the 20th century. They tended to hold the belief that the universe had no beginning.
But the fact that the universe had a beginning makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to deny that it had a cause. This leads to the likelihood of intelligent design, an idea which is a major source of fear for secular scientists whose identities and sense of pride has been founded on the belief in a Godless, randomly based universe.