Is it reasonable to believe in the Multiverse?

[historia]

Is it reasonable to believe in the Multiverse?

Note, the question here is not whether you think it is true that the Multiverse exists, but simply whether such a belief is reasonable or not.

[Inquirer]

Is it reasonable to believe in the multiverse?

I think that's largely a personal decision, and given the highly technical nature of the subject, one that the vast, vast majority of people aren't really qualified to make.

Just to clarify, again, I'm not asking if you personally believe in the multiverse or not. I'm simply asking whether you think it's reasonable. One could remain unconvinced of a hypothesis and still find it reasonable.

And that's what I addressed. Whether one finds it "reasonable" is largely a subjective decision, and given its highly technical nature, one that most of us aren't really qualified to make.

According to the Forbes article above, a good number of astrophysicists believe in the multiverse. If we want to defer to the experts here -- always a good idea, I think -- wouldn't we therefore conclude that the hypothesis must be at least reasonable for so many experts to believe it?

I think it's reasonable to defer to the experts, or at the very least say "I don't know".

Which experts? if we defer to them the we still have to choose which interpretation - we have to choose - we can't "defer" because we have to choose who to defer to!

[historia]

According to the Forbes article above, a good number of astrophysicists believe in the multiverse. If we want to defer to the experts here -- always a good idea, I think -- wouldn't we therefore conclude that the hypothesis must be at least reasonable for so many experts to believe it?

I think it's reasonable to defer to the experts, or at the very least say "I don't know".

Okay, so if it's reasonable to defer to the experts, and the experts appear to think it's reasonable to believe in the multiverse, why then are you are so reluctant to say it's reasonable?

[historia]

Which experts? if we defer to them the we still have to choose which interpretation - we have to choose - we can't "defer" because we have to choose who to defer to!

One can defer to the consensus of experts.

[Inquirer]

Which experts? if we defer to them the we still have to choose which interpretation - we have to choose - we can't "defer" because we have to choose who to defer to!

One can defer to the consensus of experts.

Is there consensus here? I think not. Even if there was though that's still a choice on your part, to align with the consensus means to not align with those who are not part of that consensus.

I think its far better to say "I have no idea" and only adopt a position when one has invested the time and effort necessary to comprehend the options.

[historia]

According to the Forbes article above, a good number of astrophysicists believe in the multiverse. If we want to defer to the experts here -- always a good idea, I think -- wouldn't we therefore conclude that the hypothesis must be at least reasonable for so many experts to believe it?

I think it's reasonable to defer to the experts, or at the very least say "I don't know".

Which experts? if we defer to them the we still have to choose which interpretation - we have to choose - we can't "defer" because we have to choose who to defer to!

One can defer to the consensus of experts.

Is there consensus here? I think not.

Keep in mind that what I'm referring to "here" is whether the multiverse is reasonable or not.

So the question would be: Is there a consensus among astrophysicists that the multiverse is a reasonable hypothesis? (Not whether there is a consensus that it is true.) The fact that it's treated as a serious hypothesis would seem to indicate there is a consensus that it is reasonable, would you not agree?

Even if there was though that's still a choice on your part, to align with the consensus means to not align with those who are not part of that consensus.

Sure. Is that a controversial point?

I think its far better to say "I have no idea" and only adopt a position when one has invested the time and effort necessary to comprehend the options.

I disagree. There are simply too many things in the world to know about to not rely upon the consensus of experts.

[Inquirer]

According to the Forbes article above, a good number of astrophysicists believe in the multiverse. If we want to defer to the experts here -- always a good idea, I think -- wouldn't we therefore conclude that the hypothesis must be at least reasonable for so many experts to believe it?

I think it's reasonable to defer to the experts, or at the very least say "I don't know".

Which experts? if we defer to them the we still have to choose which interpretation - we have to choose - we can't "defer" because we have to choose who to defer to!

One can defer to the consensus of experts.

Is there consensus here? I think not.

Keep in mind that what I'm referring to "here" is whether the multiverse is reasonable or not.

So the question would be: Is there a consensus among astrophysicists that the multiverse is a reasonable hypothesis? (Not whether there is a consensus that it is true.) The fact that it's treated as a serious hypothesis would seem to indicate there is a consensus that it is reasonable, would you not agree?

Yes, I misunderstood, I agree here there is consensus as to the reasonableness.

Even if there was though that's still a choice on your part, to align with the consensus means to not align with those who are not part of that consensus.

Sure. Is that a controversial point?

I don't know, I mean lack of consensus implies controversy I think. But the point I was making is that one must still make a decision as to what (or rather who) to "believe".

I think its far better to say "I have no idea" and only adopt a position when one has invested the time and effort necessary to comprehend the options.

I disagree. There are simply too many things in the world to know about to not rely upon the consensus of experts.

Right but consensus isn't the only option open to us as to what to believe. There are also many historical examples of where that has led to problems. I would say that if one has insufficient data to make some kind of informed choice then one should remain uncommitted, open minded - consensus or no.

Consider Galileo, would one have been right to disregard what he had to say just because there was a consensus at the time, that he was wrong?

[Jose Fly]

Is it reasonable to believe in the multiverse?

I think that's largely a personal decision, and given the highly technical nature of the subject, one that the vast, vast majority of people aren't really qualified to make.

Just to clarify, again, I'm not asking if you personally believe in the multiverse or not. I'm simply asking whether you think it's reasonable. One could remain unconvinced of a hypothesis and still find it reasonable.

And that's what I addressed. Whether one finds it "reasonable" is largely a subjective decision, and given its highly technical nature, one that most of us aren't really qualified to make.

According to the Forbes article above, a good number of astrophysicists believe in the multiverse. If we want to defer to the experts here -- always a good idea, I think -- wouldn't we therefore conclude that the hypothesis must be at least reasonable for so many experts to believe it?

I think it's reasonable to defer to the experts, or at the very least say "I don't know".

Which experts? if we defer to them the we still have to choose which interpretation - we have to choose - we can't "defer" because we have to choose who to defer to!

And if one is unable to evaluate between interpretations (due to a lack of knowledge of the subject), then again....the proper position is "I don't really know". It's amazing how difficult that is for some folks to admit.

[Jose Fly]

Okay, so if it's reasonable to defer to the experts, and the experts appear to think it's reasonable to believe in the multiverse, why then are you are so reluctant to say it's reasonable?

Because I really don't know very much about the subject. Maybe the experts are correct, maybe they aren't, or maybe it's a mix. I honestly have no ability to tell, so IMO the proper position is "I don't really know". Is that a problem?

[Inquirer]

Is it reasonable to believe in the multiverse?

I think that's largely a personal decision, and given the highly technical nature of the subject, one that the vast, vast majority of people aren't really qualified to make.

Just to clarify, again, I'm not asking if you personally believe in the multiverse or not. I'm simply asking whether you think it's reasonable. One could remain unconvinced of a hypothesis and still find it reasonable.

And that's what I addressed. Whether one finds it "reasonable" is largely a subjective decision, and given its highly technical nature, one that most of us aren't really qualified to make.

According to the Forbes article above, a good number of astrophysicists believe in the multiverse. If we want to defer to the experts here -- always a good idea, I think -- wouldn't we therefore conclude that the hypothesis must be at least reasonable for so many experts to believe it?

I think it's reasonable to defer to the experts, or at the very least say "I don't know".

Which experts? if we defer to them the we still have to choose which interpretation - we have to choose - we can't "defer" because we have to choose who to defer to!

And if one is unable to evaluate between interpretations (due to a lack of knowledge of the subject), then again....the proper position is "I don't really know". It's amazing how difficult that is for some folks to admit.

I agree, which is why I wrote:

Right but consensus isn't the only option open to us as to what to believe. There are also many historical examples of where that has led to problems. I would say that if one has insufficient data to make some kind of informed choice then one should remain uncommitted, open minded - consensus or no.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to historia in post #85]

So the question would be: Is there a consensus among astrophysicists that the multiverse is a reasonable hypothesis? (Not whether there is a consensus that it is true.) The fact that it's treated as a serious hypothesis would seem to indicate there is a consensus that it is reasonable, would you not agree?

The multiverse is totally unreasonable for five reasons, there may be more by the time I am done writing.
1. There is no way to even observe anything outside of this universe because the laws of physics outside of this universe have to be different.
2. The physical laws of the universe outside of this universe have to be different in another universe. Which makes anything possible.
3. The theory states that there are an infinite number of universes so this is nothing more than a static universe theory.
4. There has to be an infinite number of Earthscience guys out there. I think everyone can agree that one is more than enough for any set of universes.
5. There are experts that believe and have mathematical theories that say:
a. We are nothing more than an alien game. https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... out-50-50/
b. We are nothing more than two-dimensional information on the surface of a black hole that projects a three-dimensional image to the
interior of a black hole. (Leonard Susskind)
c. We part of Boltzmann Brian adrift in the cosmos somewhere. Boltzmann Brain.

The lunacy of the different theories makes all of them not reasonable to believe including the multiverse theory. Each of these different theories is proposed by experts, so it is easily shown that these theories are not based on science but simply a desire not to believe that a God created this universe.