Empirical Evidence for Multiverse

[JuliaL]

Question for Chad:

My hypothetical-

Premise: the ultraverse is of truly infinite extent and entirely random (the character of every portion is entirely independent of the character of any other portion).

There will be n-dimensional volumes of arbitrary extent (including infinite) which, though random, appear ordered.  They would be exceedingly improbable and uncommon but remember, the ultraverse is truly infinite.

The anthropic principle insures that we can only be in one of these volumes.

My question to you is:

How does God know He is not also in one of these volumes? 

Examination either yields ordered or random data.  Ordered data shows one to be in a seemingly ordered volume, random data shows nothing.
Science is satisfied with local and tentative explanations, theology is not and fails thereby.

[Whateverist]

................(crickets)

Not only is there no empirically verifiable evidence for the multiverse, there could not ever be. By definition, the constants and physical laws that make our universe possible would not apply in another. In short, our version of physics would have no applicability to the 'natural' laws of an alternate universe. The multiverse is an unfalsifiable faith-based theory.

What makes it faith based?  We're not counting on it for anything.  We don't try to supplicate it with sacrifices and promises.  The multiverse is about following ideas to the limits of our ability.  It is simply the most reasonable hypothesis that I personally can think of.  For those of us dissatisfied with the idea that everything is but a passing whim of a magic genie, it provides provisional closure.

But you are right, as with god belief, it is not falsifiable.  Of course an unavailability of empirical evidence is precisely what the theory would predict (I think).  That makes it different than god belief since, according to your sacred records, God can and has made Himself known to man in the past.  Unlike God, the multiverse isn't being coy, it is simply a structure -if it exists at all- that is at too great a scale to permit our detection.  That is simply a statement of our own situation perceptually.  

A multiverse is the best frame I can think of for placing what we know of the universe about us.  The alternative is what?  To imagine an end of space, a beginning and end of time?  Intellectually those things bother me.

[Jackalope]

@OP

I'm not personally aware of any empirical evidence for a multiverse.

Nor do I happen to be aware of any positions I hold that are dependent on such evidence existing.

Not really sure what your point was, if any.

[LastPoet]

His point was a tu qoque. The problem is that science tests its hypothesys. The same cannot be said about certain untestable ones. For those you only need to believe real hard.

[Whateverist]

Whether another universe's physical laws would be completely different from ours would depend on which, if any, multiple universe hypothesis turns out to be true. There's no reason why other universes would necessarily vary widely from ours and no reason to think the universal constants are completely arbitrary and random in their values.

Well said.  I think the idea of a multiverse gets confused with the philosophic idea of the best of all possible worlds.  The multiverse does not require that every conceivable variant should exist.  

An adequate theory of physical laws must already account for the early stages of the universe.  But the change of physical laws during the early evolution of the universe is not random or haphazard.  Changes in the 'laws' are self-consistent given the radical changes in the states of things.  Most likely there is an adequate description of how everything hangs together.  Is simply won't be available to any conceivable creature, our selves included.

[John V]

I didn't know you were so 'clued up' on the multiverse theory.

You should submit your theory to the scientific community for testing.

You are a highly qualified theoretical physicist as opposed to a theist with confirmation bias who speaks of subjects he is ignorant in... right?

His multiverse views would stand up to testing as well as any others...because none of them can be tested.

[vorlon13]

As we contemplate the universe we see around us and extrapolate how it might evolve (depressingly) over the next googleplex to the googleplex power a googlplex number of times (the REALLY big picture) it can direct our thoughts in the other direction (if'n you all is enlightened 'bout shit as me) as to what was going on here in 'our' region of the "whatever-verse" that many years in the past.

[robvalue]

Is this over now? Did we win?

I guess it confuses some people how the word theory sometimes gets used to mean hypothesis, even regarding some popular scientific hypotheses. No one I know of goes around claiming this stuff is definitely true.

[downbeatplumb]

I didn't know you were so 'clued up' on the multiverse theory.

You should submit your theory to the scientific community for testing.

You are a highly qualified theoretical physicist as opposed to a theist with confirmation bias who speaks of subjects he is ignorant in... right?

His multiverse views would stand up to testing as well as any others...because none of them can be tested.

And yet there are theoretical tests for the multiverse that could one day yield results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-world...rpretation

in 1985, David Deutsch published three related thought experiments which could test the theory vs the Copenhagen interpretation.[54] The experiments require macroscopic quantum state preparation and quantum erasure by a hypothetical quantum computer which is currently outside experimental possibility

[robvalue]

That's quite exciting that someone has an idea about how it might be tested

I don't get how it's possible, but my knowledge in this area is not very good.