posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:43 PM
a reply to: mikefougnie
I agree with Bassago
. If you're seeking knowledge, you should do a web search instead of making an ATS thread. However, it is clear from your
recent activity that you are simply a creationist looking for an argument. Very well.
There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any universe other than our own. One group of researchers claimed to find such evidence in CMB
anisotropy data, but were later proved wrong. Even if they had been proved right, the kind of 'multiple universes' they claimed to find were simply
other regions of spacetime ('Hubble volumes') with similar conditions to the one we live in, distributed within an infinite spacetime that contains
them all. That is, they can be considered as separate universes for technical reasons but are all part of the same continuum.
Mathematical tricks pulled by clever theoretical physicists may suggest otherwise, but in practical terms, evidence for the existence of other
universes is, by definition, imperceptible to us.
However, there is one 'multiverse' hypothesis (none of them have the status of theories) that is compelling: it is the so-called Many Worlds
hypothesis to which Bassago linked you earler. The MW hypothesis is one way in which the paradoxes of quantum mechanics might be explained. However,
it offers no support for the Anthropic 'fine-tuning' Principle, since in it all universes are offshoots of a single set of initial conditions.
I know you are probably beyond the reach of reason on this subject, but I heartily advise you not to bother your head with all this stuff. It is
simply too advanced, conceptually speaking, for a mind that clings to creationist beliefs and fallacies. You will never believe it because you will
never understand it. Believe whatever you wish to believe instead, and leave science to those who have the brains and the stomachs for it. Just scoff
at us and tell us we're wrong, as you have been doing. After all, we might be; science, unlike religion, always admits that possibility.
edit on 13/9/14 by Astyanax because: of phosphenes.