So You Think That Neat ‘Multiverse’ Theory Explains It All …

No, when people talk about the “Multiverse” theory, they aren’t talking about music with a lot of stanzas or choruses. Odds are, they are talking about more basic issues like “how did the universe get here” and “why are there human beings.”

You can’t talk about those kinds of issues on Capitol Hill or anywhere else these days without somebody, sooner rather than later, confidently pronouncing something like “our universe is just one of many universes that are constantly evolving and forever changing.”

And hey, if Neil deGrasse Tyson believes in the multiverse theory, it must be true, right? I mean, right? Well, no, as a matter of fact, allow me to introduce Regis Nicoll and a fascinating analysis of the countless problems with the multiverse theory.

Just to give you a sample, check out this little piece of historical analysis by Nicoll that captures the basic definition of multiverse theory and points to the multiple problems with it (no pun intended), including the role of Elvis Presley:

“In 1957, Princeton’s Hugh Everett III proposed the many-worlds theory. Many-worlds starts with a controversial interpretation of quantum theory in which sub-atomic particles continuously split into separate quantum states.

“Everett imagined that each split created a parallel universe in which particles existed as mirror images of themselves. The result is that every possible state of a particle is realized somewhere.

“Taking many-worlds to its logical conclusion, cosmology consultant Marcus Chown quipped, ‘Elvis didn’t die on that loo eating a burger but is still alive in an infinite number of places.’

“The problems with many-worlds are many, including where all of these parallel universes exist, how an entire universe can be created by an infinitesimal change in a particle’s state, and the endless stream of universes created by every object in the cosmos at every moment in time.

“Taking many-worlds to its logical conclusion, cosmology consultant Marcus Chown quipped, ‘Elvis didn’t die on that loo eating a burger but is still alive in an infinite number of places.'”

Now I know there are still a few Elvis fans out there and I hate to be the one bringing the bad news, but he really did die and he isn’t flipping burgers in contended anonymity somewhere like Seattle or Muskogee or anywhere else.

But back to the point: If you care about such questions as why are we here, do our lives have purposes beyond cashing paychecks and making sure the boss gets re-elected, then I urge you, no, make that I implore you to click on this link and read “It’s Beyond Us” in Salvo, a publication with which, by the way, you, as an intelligent person with an inquiring mind, ought to know about.

Photo above by Linda Xu on Unsplash.

Author: Mark Tapscott

Follower of Christ, devoted husband of Claudia, doting father and grandfather, conservative lover of liberty, journalist and First Amendment fanatic, former Hill and Reagan aide, vintage Formula Ford racer, Okie by birth/Texan by blood/proud of both, resident of Maryland.

6 thoughts on “So You Think That Neat ‘Multiverse’ Theory Explains It All …”

  1. The multiverse was created metaphorically (not in reality) to refute the embarrassing fact that our universe is incredibly fine tuned for life. To explain this away, an infinite number of universe were postulated of which ours is just a lucky one to enable life.

    There are many major problems but one ironic one is that an infinite number of universes would allow an infinite intelligence to develop. Actually it would allow an infinite number of infinite intelligences. So we would not have just one God, but an infinite number of them.

    Issac Asimov wrote a short story titled “The Last Question” that illustrated this by speculating what might happen in our universe before it disappeared. http://bit.ly/2H6neDz

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Anything but nonsense and begging the question. It is those who propose the multiverse that are really begging the question which means assuming the conclusion without proof. They are assuming an outcome without anything close to verifying evidence. At best it is wild speculation. Any discussion of the multiverse should admit that up-front.

    Here are two discussions of the multiverse that readers might want to consider

    http://bit.ly/2HgLMtH
    and http://bit.ly/2VWVMvl

    The second article is from a hard core atheist who is frequently guilty of begging the question because he is always assuming that conclusion as part of his belief system.

    Science points to a creator of our universe that has an immense intelligence. It also points to a massive intelligence interfering in our universe one it existed, They don’t have to be the same but both are supported by the science of today.

    Thus, an atheist is perpetually guilty of begging the question because such an intelligence must be a possible alternative conclusion. No one can be an atheist and be intellectually honest. The obvious conclusion from science is that a creator is a possible explanation. Being agnostic is more intellectually honest but then they must admit that a creator is a possibility.

    By the way, the multiverse if true doesn’t preclude a creator. Nor does the creator have to be the Judaeo/Christian God.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s