Multiverse theory is not based on nothing. It can be flawed to the point where it can be discarded. But again, this is still a better way of prediction even if it does not pan out as true, because it is subject to real rigors of scientific method.
The good thing about ethical science is that you DO have competing theories but time will defeat one over another and with the rigors of peer review you keep what works, build upon that and discard what doesn't work.
It makes much more sense to extrapolate multiple universes just like a bubble bath. Not saying it is currently proven. But we also at one point thought our galaxy was the entire universe. It was at the time our best data, but because science refused to stop at that, we didn't discard the evidence of our galaxy and throw out all the data. We simply improved on the data and adapted the newer data.
Will a multiverse be proven? I think currently at best it will only be on paper. Other scientists dont buy it as a theory. However Just like we most likely, will never travel into a black hole. Mathematically we do know based on laws of nature to a great extent what happens to the material sucked into a black hole.
One big wall science has hit is detecting anything behind our background radiation. If we ever figure out a way to build a tool that can do that, I would say it would go a long way in knowing what happened prior to the big bang.
I would say if we are going to extrapolate something prior, we will not find a god. It would be more like a decayed leaf becoming nutrients for a future plant.
Cycles exist in everything so if you view the universe as a weather pattern, and not an invented product, what we don't currently know would be just as natural and cyclical as the seasons changing on the planet. If we find out, whatever we find out, will not include a sky hero. QM is actually really freaky in that it is pointing to both something or nothing prior. But what QM does not require is a cognition as a starting cause.
The good thing about ethical science is that you DO have competing theories but time will defeat one over another and with the rigors of peer review you keep what works, build upon that and discard what doesn't work.
It makes much more sense to extrapolate multiple universes just like a bubble bath. Not saying it is currently proven. But we also at one point thought our galaxy was the entire universe. It was at the time our best data, but because science refused to stop at that, we didn't discard the evidence of our galaxy and throw out all the data. We simply improved on the data and adapted the newer data.
Will a multiverse be proven? I think currently at best it will only be on paper. Other scientists dont buy it as a theory. However Just like we most likely, will never travel into a black hole. Mathematically we do know based on laws of nature to a great extent what happens to the material sucked into a black hole.
One big wall science has hit is detecting anything behind our background radiation. If we ever figure out a way to build a tool that can do that, I would say it would go a long way in knowing what happened prior to the big bang.
I would say if we are going to extrapolate something prior, we will not find a god. It would be more like a decayed leaf becoming nutrients for a future plant.
Cycles exist in everything so if you view the universe as a weather pattern, and not an invented product, what we don't currently know would be just as natural and cyclical as the seasons changing on the planet. If we find out, whatever we find out, will not include a sky hero. QM is actually really freaky in that it is pointing to both something or nothing prior. But what QM does not require is a cognition as a starting cause.
