So.... The multiverse is unscientificly sound?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AKatheriene
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Multiverse Sound
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the multiverse and its scientific validity. Participants explore the implications of the multiverse theory in relation to the nature of time, beginnings, and the philosophical aspects of science.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that the multiverse lacks a beginning and an end, raising questions about the nature of scientific facts and whether science is merely a human construct for explaining phenomena.
  • Others argue that while the multiverse theory is intriguing, it currently lacks experimental evidence and should not be considered a fact.
  • There are claims that spacetime may not have a beginning, which complicates the understanding of time and existence before what is traditionally considered the beginning of time.
  • One participant emphasizes that science is a constantly evolving body of knowledge rather than a collection of absolute facts, challenging the notion that everything in science has a definitive beginning and end.
  • Some participants express confusion about the implications of the multiverse and spacetime, indicating a need for clearer analogies and explanations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the multiverse theory, its implications for the nature of time, and the philosophical underpinnings of scientific knowledge. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus reached.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made about the nature of spacetime and the multiverse, as well as the definitions of scientific facts versus philosophical interpretations. The discussion reflects varying levels of understanding and interpretation of these concepts.

AKatheriene
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
According to science everything has a beginning and an end, even infenent genius. But the multiverse has no beginning and no end, it just keeps going. So in that line of thought, is science really fact, or just people trying to explained things like ancient cultures and their deities?
btw, I'm in middle school.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi, I'm in middle school too. Before you get a fairly rude response, I'll have a go at it. 1+1=2. Fact? Yes, but humans made up math to explain why if I have one stone and add another stone to it, I get two stones. Science is just like that, because it tries to explain things (not so mythical as your examples) and is fact. Now, to the multiverse part. As a side note, be careful throwing around the term multiverse, especially around here. The multiverse theory is an interesting one, because it catches people's attention while having no exparimental evidence. Some people on PF get mad when you confuse popular science with real hard science involving lots of math. I made that mistake one too many times. If you go into the issues about spacetime (I will refer to your multiverse as spacetime) people say that spacetime did have a begining, and it did not. Saying spacetime had a beginning implies time outside of spacetime, so there has never been a time without spacetime, but at the same time, saying spacetime is infinite is not exactly correct (so in other words, according to the Big Bang which is widely accepted, there was a "begining" to spacetime, but there was never a time without spacetime). It's hard to wrap your head around, but eventually you'll get it. I hope that helps!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fresh_42 and AKatheriene
So what your saying is there was a time before what we consider the beginning of time. That makes sense, but according to the multiverse theory, everything just kinda keeps on going, so there would be no beginning or end, which is not scientific. It's the same thing size, you can get infenently bigger and infenently smaller, and time (the general term) there had to be something before the "beginning" or there would be nothing at all.
 
One thing to bear in mind is that a Multiverse is not something which is known to exist.
It's a concept that is implied by string theories, and some interpretations of Quantum Mechanics.
We have no evidence at all that it's a real thing, so it definitely can't be called a fact.
At best it's an idea that might be true if certain given assumptions are true, --- and we don't know if they are.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: AKatheriene
It still doesn't make sense.
 
AKatheriene said:
It still doesn't make sense.
Many would agree with you ...
 
AKatheriene said:
According to science everything has a beginning and an end, even infenent genius. But the multiverse has no beginning and no end, it just keeps going. So in that line of thought, is science really fact, or just people trying to explained things like ancient cultures and their deities?
btw, I'm in middle school.

Science never said anything like that, some type of philosophy did. Science doesn't care about what's nice, makes sense, or tickles fancies- only results; further, science isn't fact. It's a constantly expanding body of knowledge and approximations on how nature seems to behave given a set of constraints.

Anyone who says science does anymore than that is either deluded, a crackpot, or both.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DrewD and DrClaude
AKatheriene said:
So what your saying is there was a time before what we consider the beginning of time.
Nope, I am saying the exact opposite. There was nothing before spacetime. Spacetime has not been here infinitely, but it did not have a beginning. It is very hard to understand. Let me think of a few good analogies and I'll get back to you.
Also, perhaps the most important thing I said in my previous comment was the validity of the multiverse theory, or lack thereof. It has no exparimental evidence for it. You can't say it is not true for sure, but let's not call it fact.
 
By no beginning I mean there was no time before it.
 
  • #10
AKatheriene said:
According to science everything has a beginning and an end,

Does science say that? Who is saying that where?
I suspect that the answer is that no one is really saying that, you're kind of assuming it. If that's what going on, this thread is a going to be futile because it's based in a false premise (although there are plenty of other threads, so I'd encourage you to stick around and read some of them). Thus, this is thread is closed.

If I am mistaken and you do indeed have a source, someone who is saying that "according to science everything has a beginning and an end", then PM one of the mentors and we can reopen the thread for discussion of that claim.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • · Replies 174 ·
6
Replies
174
Views
15K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K