Why the multiverse is religion, not science.

Why the multiverse is religion, not science.


Today I want to explain why the multiverse
is religion. This is not a polemical argument and it is
not meant as an insult. But believing in the multiverse is logically
equivalent to believing in god, therefore it’s religion, not science. To see why, let me pull together what I laid
out in my previous videos. Scientists say that something exists if it
is useful to describe observations. By “useful” I mean it is simpler than
just collecting data. You can postulate the existence of things
that are not useful to describe observations, such as gods, but this is no longer science. Universes besides our own are logically equivalent
to gods. They are unobservable by assumption, therefore
they can exist only in a religious sense. You can believe in them if you want to, but
they are not part of science. I know that this is not a particularly remarkable
argument. But physicists seem to have a hard time following
it, especially those who happen to work on the multiverse. Therefore, let me sort out some common misunderstandings. First. The major misunderstanding is that I am saying
the multiverse does not exist. But this is not what I am saying. I am saying science does not tell us anything
about universes we cannot observe, therefore claiming they exist is not science. Second. They will argue the multiverse is simple. Most physicists who are in favor of the multiverse
say it’s scientific because it’s simpler to assume that all universes of a certain
type exist than it is to assume that only one of them exist. That’s a questionable claim. But more importantly, it’s beside the point. The simplest assumption is no assumption. And you do not need to make any statement
about the existence of the multiverse to explain our observations. Therefore, science says, you should not. As I said, it’s the same with the multiverse
as with god. It’s an unnecessary assumption. Not wrong, but superfluous. You also do not need to postulate the existence
of our universe, of course. No scientist ever does that. That would be totally ridiculous. Third. They’ll claim the existence of the multiverse
is a prediction of their theory. It’s not. That’s just wrong. Theories don’t predict what does and does
not exist. We determine that something exists, in the
scientific sense, if it is useful to describe observation. That’s exactly what the multiverse is not. Fourth. But then you are saying that discussing what’s
inside a black hole is also not science That’s equally wrong. Other universes are not science because you
cannot observe them. But you can totally observe what’s inside
a black hole. You just cannot come back and tell us about
it. Besides, no one really thinks that the inside
of a black hole will remain inaccessible forever. For reasons, the situation is entirely different
for black holes. If it was correct that the inside of black
holes cannot be observed, this would indeed mean that postulating its existence is not
scientific. Fifth. But there are types of multiverses that have
observable consequences. That’s right. Physicists have come up with certain types
of multiverses that can be falsified. The problem with these ideas is conceptually
entirely different. It’s that there is no reason to think we
live in such multiverses to begin with. The requirement that a hypothesis must be
falsifiable is certainly necessary to make the hypothesis scientific, but not sufficient. We will talk about this some other time. To sum it. The multiverse is certainly an interesting
idea and it attracts a lot of public attention. There is nothing wrong with that in principle. Entertainment has a value and so has thought-stimulating
discussion. But do not confuse the multiverse with science,
because it is not.

100 thoughts on “Why the multiverse is religion, not science.

  1. Great video. It really frustrates me that so many popularizers of string theory and the multiverse are banging on about them as though they are on the verge of taking our understanding of reality to the next level. Michio Kaku was on NPR last week just gushing about the multiverse so enthusiastically that he really did sound like a religious fanatic. (For laughs, do a little mental exercise of replacing the word "multiverse" with the word "Jesus" every time you hear him say it.)

  2. The multiverse seems for many to be set up to explain away the fine-tuning problem – and it does so without providing a mechanism for how physical constants can vary across universes. You will note that hydrogen spectra from distant galaxies has the same profile as hydrogen spectra in a terrestrial laboratory. No reason why the spectra will vary from universe to universe. In this way the Anthropic Principle is form of militant atheism without a real theory to back it up.

    Some Multiverse theories profess to explain the quantum measurement problem – creating a narrative of what happens when a measurement occurs , but without providing a mechanism, which is the point of the Q measurement problem anyway – quantum mechanics nor its multiverse interpretation cannot explain measurement.

    Ultimately the universe has as many dimensions as is required to most efficiently express its behaviour. It is thus as much about computational efficiency as anything else.

  3. I get an ew feeling when I read the title. It feels a little dismissive to call a belief in something which is a possibility a religion. I think it might be more useful and accurate to label such a human phenomenon as unscientific thinking rather than a religion. Also, associating what is a wonderful exploration and exercise of thought for many with the stigma of religion might dissuade young lay budding philosophers from exploring the ideas (let's face it, we see things in black and white when we are young), which seems more like something a dogmatic religious person would want.

  4. "Do not confuse multiverse with science, because it isn't."
    Quantum Gravity is an area which Sabine Hossenfelder specializes…hmm, funny, then conversely I'd have to state; do not confuse "quantum gravity" with science, because it isn't.

  5. God is an explanation for observations which have (always in the eye of the beholder) no other plausible explanations.
    How this is differing from any other explanation?

  6. so you assume every galaxy you see out there is in your universe? can you prove it? sounds like that other religion, meism

  7. The argument is not only not particularly remarkable, it's not particularly useful. If you wish to use a semantical stuffed eel to beat up on the idea "multiverse" you might first define your wastebasket in which you would like to toss it, "religion."

    According to Christopher Hitchens (RIP) who knew a little about the subject religion is; 1. Hero worship + unassailable dogma + criminalization of certain thought. And so for from Stalinism to Christianity, Buddhism to Islam, we see all these forms of intellectual compartmentalization fit Hitchens definition very well. The multiverse? Not so much.
    What might be emphasized is that a held belief not science is not therefore religion and, holding open conjectures on difficult subjects is not "belief" in the sense that faith reinforces belief in various deities. Though popular in the minds of many who enjoy physics and strongly emphasized as a solution to some loose ends in cosmology by serious scientists, I have never run across even one person who believes in the multiverse the way Augustus of Hippo believed, at the end of his life, in God.
    I'll go back at this point by point as I have time.

  8. The same holds true for black holes, dark matter and dark energy. Non provable or disprovable psuedo science funding scams!

  9. Just my thought: If theoretical "knowledge" is considered to be the inductive synthesis of empirical observation, then it is a claim about observations that were never made, but could have been under the provisional theory. Then, the theory would describe all possible observations consistent with the theory. More generally, comprehensive conclusions of inductive reasoning that describe the whole world, would equally apply to all possible worlds. Not that possible worlds are themselves literally observable, but rather the concept of "knowledge" derives from a pragmatic epistemology that gives equal credence to knowledge of the "real world" as to "possible worlds". As for falsifiability, Godel's incompleteness theorem seems to show that some things can be known yet cannot be proven.

  10. Ms Sabine why you put aliens(that little green alien in lower left corner) into same category as Gods. Radar can detect alien space crafts. So radar is lying? Radar waves are reflected from physical objects.

  11. Ms Sabine. How black holes can be real if they are theoretical constructs invented here on earth. Black holes involve division by zero which cant be done. You cant divide by zero.
    So infinite density inside black hole is not real. Because 1/0 =/= infinity.

  12. With all due respect to Sabine, it is disingenuous to lump true-religion with wholly imaginary 'entertaining' postulations like multiverse. Biblical faith cannot be a figment of pure imagination, when it is firmly based on God's historic creation of a most "observable" people group on earth, namely, the Jews. The recorded and therefore Observed-HISTORY of the Jewish people — who have now spontaneously returned to their Promised Land after being deported for almost 1800 years ago by the Roman Empire in 135 AD — is also the recorded and openly Observed-HISTORY of God, by way of his creation of this same nation and his associated overt intervention or inconvenient intrusion into human history. How is the God of the Bible then an unobservable postulation? Is the history of the European nations a figment of imagination too?

    Read the Hebrew Bible and you will see God's dealing with Israel was decidedly un-mystical and designed to be observable for the obvious purpose of creating recorded history.

    Beginning with his deliberate display of power in decimating ancient Egypt, the rescue of his people from that super power, followed by the giving of law on the desert mount complete with fanfare of frightful 'fireworks" accompanied by quaking earth and AUDIBLY speaking with the WHOLE nation, thereafter, making himself visibly present in the camp for 40 years, before destroying the Canaanites to bequeath the promise land to his Chosen People. These are the recorded history of a people who are extant in the world today as I type this. One can POSTULATE and challenge, that this is but entertaining folklore or religious fiction, but then they would have to flatly deny the existence and origin of the Jewish nation.

    If the God of the Jewish nation is an imagination, than the existence of Israel must also be a delusion, which it is not. Unfortunately there they are in the hottest spot on earth, ensuring that no one will deny the God of Israel who created them for himself and his Name. Thankfully, He is not done with his intervention and observable drama in human affairs, staged not in a faint far away black hole in outer space visible only to giant radio telescopes, but right here in plain view on earth. So stay tuned for his next fireworks and trembling mountain display coming soon to earth.

  13. The Multiverse is not science, it is science fiction – – bad science fiction. Fifty years ago it started out as a plot gimmick, like the "Pocket Universe"

  14. This is an interesting perspective, but I have to say I very much disagree. We clearly disagree on both what is science and what is religion. Your arguments appear to be based on a very strict empiricism bounded by even what is conceivably observable by an intelligent being, even if the information stays hidden from everybody else, such as the internal of a black hole.

    To me, science is ultimately applied reasoning, including Bayesian updating of probability from new evidence, that is accessible and checkable regardless of the individual. "Religion" in the context of an alternative approach eshews reasom, updating views, the value of evidence, and probability. It starts and ends with a claim that is believed ex nihilo — based on nothing other than a commitment to believe it.

    While it is possible to believe in a multiverse in a religious sense — on faith and with certainty — that is not the basis for multiverse theories. Most aren't believed with any certainty at all, but rather as bets, educated guesses, or other probablistic hedging, quite unlike religions.

    Further, they did not come about as an ex nihilo claim or assumption. Various versions were derived as a result of other models to describe the empirical evidence. For example, the empirical evidence behind the flatness problem, homogeneity problem, and overabundance of magnetic monopoles led to Alan Guth applying particle physics models to the early universe and got inflation theory, with modifications from Andre Linde and others. A result of this model is the prediction of a multiverse. That is, applying empirically derived particle physics models to multiple empiricle observations of the universe resulted in a model with an implicit multiverse. Nobody planned that or expected it.

    In this way, it is no different from how we came up with the concept of black holes. Schwarzschild discovered them by solving Einstein's general relativity equations. Yes, we could plausibly observe them and since have, but the "scientificness" of such ideas is not based on its observability, but on the basis for its source. If general relativity is correct, then black holes must exist. If inflationary theory is correct, then a multiverse must exist. Nobody had faith in black holes, and nobody has faith in a multiverse.

    Similarly, the Many Worlds multiverse is an outcome of empirically derived models. Nobody planned quantum physics, but the model is what it is. Everything appears provablistic until observed, meaning information leaks out, at which point it is difinitive. This leaves three options: the probability wave "collapses" when information is extracted and only one possible outcome occurs at random (Copenhagen interpretation), the one outcome isn't random but stocastic determinism linited by our ability to measure states (Pilot Wave), or all possible outcomes happen and multiple versions of us observe each different outcome (Many Worlds). We may may mever be able to determine which is true, but that doesn't change that the options are limited by empirical observations of which one requires a multiverse. It falls out of the empirical possibilities.

    Then of course the version that describes the singular universe as infinite but with finite states results in an infinite and continuous collection of "observable universe" regions which also falls out of applied empirical evidence and reasoning (flatness, finite but large number of possible states).

    String theory has it's own version, which again falls out of the math. But then string theory has several layers of observability to overcome so is quite a weak probability at this point.

    Again, there is nothing takeb on faith, or believed as "gospel truth" in any of these cases, and all derive from existing empirical based models. If a multiverse doesn't exist, the underlying empirical model must be wrong, in which case we need alternative models that explain the data at least as well and don't result in a multiverse. That's easy with string theory, plausible with Many Worlds — though results in claims that are just as weird and unobservable — and difficult with Inflation.

    This is quite different from certainty and blind faith in religions, which are believed despite evidence to the contrary and despite origins from ignorance that has since been improved upon.

    By comparison, who believes in a multiverse with absolute certainty, what evidence exists against a multiverse exists, and what new model has replaced the old "ignorant" models from which a multiverse derived?

    Also, just because a mutiverse isn't directly observable doesn't mean you can strengthen it with empirical evidence. You can strengthen a model of physics with emipirical evidence and that model can implicity result in a mutiverse existing. That is still evidence, and empirical evidence, even if not direct.

    Hence my disagreement with your position here.

  15. I see the multiverse as the far fetched and a bit desperate alternative to a creator. If the multiverse does not exist, according to statistics, an intelligent creator must be responsible for the cosmological constant.

  16. Science isn't science any more and has been a religion since it accepted the Idea and Belief that you could get get an entire Universe from Nothing and have that Nothing slowly turn into the Evolution of Life and the Cosmos.

  17. Believing in the multiverse or string/brane theory is religion, their possability is not religion, they are hypothesis. In the future if we survive and our societies don't collapse, (Evidence to date points to this being unlikely.) we may have the tools to make observations regarding these hypothesis, e.g the bleeding of gravitation waves through universe (I'm not a scientist so I'm probably bastardising science, sorry.) Gods based on religions on the other hand have lots of evidence against them including their history, archeology, anthropology, neuro science. God as some force/entity that was involved in setting the universe we inhabit in motion however can still sit in the hypothesis zone and like the multiverse and string theory hypothesis may never gain evidence or be disproved but are not religions unless we believe in them. More mental masturnbation. This is fun. As you may guess I'm an anti theist and see religion as overall harmful, including to science, probably the only thing I love.

  18. That's it!!! They're just wasting their time trying to find things which may only exist in their imagination. Logical video! Thanks!

  19. One could make the opposite arguments to the points here with some semantic maneuvering. For instance, 'we' can't observe black holes because anyone who crosses an event horizon ceases to be part of the future of our universe. Another example is that the improbability of the cosmological constant can be considered evidence that a multiverse is probable, because it explains why an improbable yet anthropologically necessary constant would have a reasonable chance to exist.

  20. The multiverse would be better compared to the religion of Atheism than belief in God because there is evidence supporting God's existence. All existence stands as evidence of a creator just as the lack of all creation would have supported the religion of Atheism. Had that been the case Sabine would be correct (and non-existent).
    Furthermore, a singular God existing for all eternity would certainly be lonely and so have motive to create one or more universes capable of evolving pals to play with and motive has historically been accepted as evidence in court before.

  21. if you cant believe it then you can't believe in inflation, which is the obvious 'next' clause to weaken your argument. scientific principles don't generally hint at the existent of god, but sometimes they hint at a mutiverse. your position of strength is it's weakness, and i'm sorry, you have thought through it very poorly…

  22. I always thought a hypothesis must be proven through a laboratory experiment.

    If so, neither biological nor cosmic evolution are scientific…

    I have never seen a laboratory experiment showing a single cell evolving into a more complex entity.

    Neither have I seen a dog evolve into a whale.

    I certainly haven’t seen any laboratory proof for the evolution of consciousness…

    I have never seen an explosion leading to the formation of a star, not even a computer simulation.

    The postulation of multiverses is logical.

    However, since by definition, they are unobservable, the belief in them is nothing more than – religion!

  23. Science, religion and politics are all different reality. If multiverses are realitys than yes they can be called separate universes.

  24. Too many jump on the bandwagon too quickly. The multiverse is not a religion because even though we still haven't found evidence or able to observe it, it has a very good mathematical framework that explain inflation and so predict the multiverse. If any theory is a religion as soon as we can't find evidence then the Higg field was a religion until 2012. Einstein's theory of relativity was a religion until several years later when we could observe gravitational lensing, time dilation, gravitational waves. History shown that good mathematical framework often lead us to great theories. This scientist though good in understanding what are our current situation, she is too conservative and pessimistic. Experiments and data sometimes lead the way and mathematics sometimes lead the way, we should not give up either of them when missing the other. Keep up your imagination, think the unthinkable are the ways to find something extraordinary!

  25. Observing the inside of a black hole would be a neat trick considering that you or your instruments would be crushed, spaghetti-fide or incinerated depending which story you subscribes to. That doesn't begin to address complete inability of reporting your finding. It would seem that for all practical purposes, no science is going to be done inside of a black hole except by inference. The inside of a black hole might as well be another universe.

  26. Is not the real issue with ultimate origin itself. The multiverse plays a role at taming the improbabilities of our universe and that is why it gets so much traction. A question I would ask is can ultimate origin ever really be the subject of science; given the philosophical underpinnings of the scientific method, or is the question itself (like the questions of what is phenomenological consciousness, what is love, what is right and wrong or does God exist) outside the scope of scientific study?

  27. Sabine, You have reminded me about a science precept that I was taught along time ago. Theories are nice, interesting to be sure and capture the imagination, however, without firm incontrovertible repeatable facts of actual existence they are just interesting side shows – nothing more. Even if certain tests point to the existence does not mean it is so.

  28. When I was a kid, I read the Bible and thought: "my god, what I this is true? What a horrible thing that would be!" When I was older, after a bad car accident I survived only because of the coincidence of several fortuitous and highly improbable factors, I thought about the possibility of many alternative realities. My friend, a physics major at Northwestern, told me about the many worlds interpretation. I pictured countless copies of my mother at my funeral, and thought, "my god, what if this is true?" So yeah, for those predisposed to imagining the worst possible world, the multiverse is indeed a religion—one in which everyone (or some part of the community of sentient beings that represent the person across the many worlds) gets to go to hell. Once again, I'd be happier thinking it wasn't true.

  29. Time was observed flowing backwards on macroscopic scales using a polystyrene bead suspended above a heat bath by optical tweezers. Should we contact the pope and tell him we have a reproducible miracle? Sadly, wisdom philosophy has not been popular in over a century, while physics and philosophers alike are increasingly dependent upon Contextual theories and tools that they either don't comprehend or don't espouse. You might as well ask a Wall Street trader for lessons in ethics and spirituality. When and if modern academia's words actually reflect the mountain of evidence collected I might start to pay attention to their opinions on spirituality and religion.

    Sadly, militant atheist academics have the worst sex lives, reproduce less often, and live shorter more miserable lives than their colleagues, and are not happy about the revelation that the physical evidence is overwhelming.

  30. Data like everything, even science is subject to entropy, a multiverse is not, dimensions are eternal, if there are no dimensions to create then there would be no creation so there must be something beyond dimensions, eternity and creation. (If you say you are a alchemist then you are not a scientist, the future is probability and possibility. If you cannot think of anything beyond alchemy then you will never evolve beyond poisoning people).

  31. Is it logically correct to point out the possible infinite ways man uses grammar incorrectly, or to figure out the universal problem in human psychology?

    Which is the noun and which the verb? The universal, or the many particulars?
    Does a mind process information in many ways or only one?

    And, if many, is a thing different from itself? And if one, what is the problem with humanity? And what is the best way to help correct it?

  32. Level 1 parallel universes are just patches of observable universe outside of our own observable universe. That seems perfectly reasonable and scientific. Level 2 parallel universes are something that I choose not to believe in because it's gratuitous to claim that something is true without evidence. Even if we claim that the multiverse is logically consistent how do we know that other universes adhere to the same logic as our universe? This may be subject to infinite regression.

  33. Scientists are the greatest believers in the potential of the universe. It is the purpose of religions, to awaken and motivate minds. God is a parable/metaphore that represent the positive potential of the universe, believing in the metaphore (God) is confusing, believing in what the metaphore represents (the potential of the Universe) is crucial to learn and create. And this what scientists do best, believe in the universe.

  34. Religion and science are closely related.
    Both follows some philosophy, and means & ways.
    Our observations are limited because our sensors and intelligence are limited. Even if we are built up from bacteria to humans, basics of our evolution is survival, and not observation and thinking. Also, our environment could be limited for evolution as compared to properties of the universe.
    If we could exploit our genes to the fullest level, may be we can come up with science and will be able to observer multiverse.
    I can specify how religion and science are related without specifics :
    Non-living forgives.
    Universe follows causality.
    Observation is believing and observation influences reality.
    Universe follows harmony and peace, but it also highly reactive.
    As we are part of the universe, our consciousness and emotions are not beyond the universe, like worship emotion. Those vibrations from our brain are part of the universe.
    Vibrations like devotion transforms nonlinearly like quantum entanglement and the universe caters to it, as total energy contents of the universe are constant.

  35. This is a complete straw man. The multiverse is not postulated to explain observation, it is the PREDICTION of theories that have high agreement with observation. And since the multiverse also has the criteria of being testable, I think scientists who refer to it as "religion" are either being disingenuous or lack expertise in the relevant cosmological models.

  36. Interesting, it appears that science, which is just a word, is searching for the beginning of TRUTH. If you found it and creation responded back; truth is what I have allowed you to see but you have no understanding of what it is.

  37. a multiverse hypothesis assumes that we know more about the beginning of our own universe than we can observe. a reference to what happened before the big bang.

  38. I wouldn't call it religion. More like a hypothesis based on some models of inflationary theory. Time will tell us better.

  39. Wait, why should we not assume our universe exists? I don't understand why that's ridiculous. Is the concept of the universe useful for collecting observations? I'd say it is. You now have the most general word possible for describing the position of something. I think I have the wrong idea about what she's saying though.

  40. I really appreciate your candor and logical reasoning here. Stephen Hawking said much the same in his final paper.

    The reason why multiverse theories are so attractive, IMHO, is that if you assume only the universe we observe, you're stuck with the First Cause argument and Anthropic Principle, which theists like me argue (philosophically, not scientifically) require not only a god, but specifically the type of God described in the Bible. That is, a being which isn't matter, energy, space-time, or the physical constants of this universe which is eternal, functionally omnipotent and omniscient, orders of magnitude more intelligent than us, very interested in creating life other than himself, etc.

    So, those who reject one religious claim simply make another, the infinite multiverse theory, then slap some equations on it, and call it "science" even though it is, as you point out, unnecessary to our observations of this universe and untestable-and likely forever so.

  41. Some people agree, some don't, but we are alll–l ! stuck in this thing called reality. Bigfoot, Aliens, and Gods are all in the same category. We call it mythology " period " (speaker of the house ref.) I do however like Sabines explanation much better. Is string theory reality ? This why we have the ?

  42. But what about the data from the cosmic microwave background radiation that suggests interaction between our universe and another? Or the multiworlds interpretation of the double-slit experiment? To say that the multiverse definitely exists is akin to religious declarations, but we can say that it's an interesting hypothesis with some promise of being confirmed.

  43. The idea of a multiverse is not a faith belief and multiverses are not supernatural, so belief in a multiverse is not religious.
    Did Sean Carroll say that a multiverse is the only idea consistent with all observations of quantum physics? That does not prove that it exists, but it is evidence far beyond what any religion has and takes the idea of a multiverse out of the realm of religion, since it is based on evidence, not faith. Also, there is nothing supernatural about a multiverse, so it is not a religious idea.

  44. Multi verse does not even come close to being a religion, to suggest this is a very bad way to express the idea that the multi verse is more philosophy than hard science.
    1. The multi verse can be put to the test, God cannot.
    2. Any serious multi verse proponents will readily admit it is an idea that is not supported by solid evidence, a religion on the other hand claims its assertions are the truth and cannot be debated.
    3, Religion is based on belief without evidence while at the same time insisting it is true. No reasonable multi verse proponent will tell non believers they are wrong for not believing it, and will readily admit they could be wrong.

  45. so, was Einstein's theory of relativity religion before it was confirmed? no, it was a hypothesis which made predictions that later could be verified. theoretically, it is the same with The Multiverse and String Theory. religion doesn't make any sufficiently stringent predictions to ever be verifiable or disproven

  46. Not arguing for the multiverse but the argument about prediction seems to me to be wrong. Throughout the history of science many unobserved things have been predicted … the Higgs Boson is a prime example, as are the existence of outer planets and even elements in the periodic table. Methods to establish the fact after the prediction had to be discovered/invented after the prediction was made – or would you argue they were also religions until proven?

    Surely the multiverse can exist in the form of a prediction – we just need to find a way to validate or disprove the prediction.

    When Higgs predicted his boson there was no method established to check the validity but large sums of money were spent to answer the question once a method was established. Who is to say a method to detect the multiverse is impossible?

    Interesting that you mention Hawking radiation … when that was predicted we had yet to even confirm the existence of Black Holes and it has taken 40 years for anyone to collect any data that could be considered evidence for it.

  47. "You can observe what is inside of a black hole" really? No we observe and quantify the surrounding affected matter/energy around a black hole – this is science. Hawking radiation, gravitation effects etc. This leads us to believe back holes are justifiable. It is inductive. I think an argument can be made for the same inductive suggestion for a multiverse If we see/quantify affects that lead to that conclusion. It is not proof of but evidence for. It largely is unfalsifiable but as theories are best explanations of observable facts and phenomena, we may well conclude a multiverse is such a "best explanation". If we were to say there is no evidence (direct or indirect) for anything beyond our local representation of the universe then yes a multiverse is not a best explanation for anything and is speculation/religion.

  48. If we are made from star dust then the star must be a god since mankind has a soul that lives after the body turns back to dust. This spirit comes from the dust that the star god made.

  49. On further pondering I realize you are employing false equivocation and equivalency fallacies here. Religion is a system of institutionalized beliefs traits and practices. Bad science is bad science and unless it can be established that this is anything other than bad science it cannot be called a religion either in a direct or comparative manner. At this point a multi-verse is a hypothesis and not a theory yes but not a religion.

  50. While we’re at it let’s see what else is not science: Big Bang, Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Expansion of the Universe, Spacetime as well as String Theory, Relativity and all other purely conceptual and computational “descriptions” of reality.

  51. I did support this perspective 2 weeks ago and still do but upon some careful thought I must retort somewhat on this issue:Yes,science has no applicable grounds for the existence of a Multiverse yet as I stated but it cannot be classified as a religion since research at this point in time culminates evidence of other Universes—not faith,spiritual guidance,or belief in a higher power as religion is based.Like I stated before,Multiverse is currently a hypothesis,but is waiting to graduate to be a theory (like the Big Bang) so that can only happen through scientific research that is not religion.Basically saying—crawl before you can walk,walk before you can run.We may be a long way from proof of a Multiverse but only hard work backed by a scientific perspective will get us there.

  52. Darwinian Evolution (macro evolution) is suppose to have occurred over billions of years and is therefore "unobservable". So, does that mean that macroevolution is not science?

  53. Throughout this video, if you replace the word "God" with "Consciousness/Intelligence" would your statements still be true?

  54. Fair point, but you can say that it is "possible" that the multiverse exists based upon certain theories. Likewise with God – you can say that it is possible that God exists based upon certain theological/philosophical frameworks. Beyond "possible" you are in the realm of belief.

  55. Religion, true but. Religion with strong scientific suggestions it really exist. Both in math and the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) also suggest it. But you're right for the moment it's nothing more then bunch of hypothesis.

  56. I'll bet Hugh Everett was kind of sorry he ever cooked up the whole idea up in the 1st place. https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Niels-Bohr-so-opposed-to-Everetts-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics

  57. The way they taught it when I was in school was that a scientific theory needs to be subject to falsifiable test(s) that have a good chance of revealing the falsehood, if it fact it is false. Put that together with the "Russell's Teapot" argument that you don't have to refute ideas that are thrown out there with no evidence, and I reached the same conclusions Dr. Hossenfelder did. She is much smarter than I am, so she can rationalize the steps of the argument better, but I'm bright enough to get from A to Z, with rough patches along the way.

  58. Sabine IS the true FRAU FARBISSINA !!! >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNmB7HQmwv0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb1_UjIPCTE

  59. A hypothesis is not a faith,may be some persons have faith that this multiverse exist,but many see it only as an unproofed hypothsis,for example Murray Gellmann.To say,that the muliverse is religion,is nonsens. It is not religion,it is a hyphothesis.And this physicist use this lack of honesty,because she don't like the hypthesis of a multiverse.That's all.

  60. The multiverse gives the same results as a single universe going through many big bang big crunch cycles so in a way the multiverse could be statistically correct.

  61. Dont agree. If the universe condensed out of some barionic soup then it's possible there were many condensation sites. CBM map may Indicate such possibilities

  62. If our universe is the only one, and we also say it has a beginning, we have to conclude that that the big bang has not been created by a physical mechanism, hence by some superpower. On the other hand if we believe the big bang is due to a physical mechanism, it should have happened more than once and it probably still happens, hence creating other universes.

  63. Is the fourth dimension real? We can't enter that either, but it does make mathematical sense and we can make proper conclusions about it. Is the fourth dimension real or is it just mathematical fiction?

  64. Sabine, I love your videos but you must position your arms better while speaking. Having them hang straight down is not appealing and detracts from the excellence of your talk. You might want to simply have the camera come in closer, or hold a microphone, or fold your hands in front of you.

  65. Don't think I agree. You said black, the interior, may be accessible in the future, but as we know for the time being, that as difficult as going to another universe. And if the problem is not that we can't look, just that we cannot go out to tell… Well, that's an assumption until it happens. And then we cannot tell, so maybe it doesn't happen. As science must be repetitive, we would run out of people before making the interior of the black hole, complete science.
    That's why I think you are being biased against the multiverse theories, or at least some of them.

  66. But studying the possibility of the multiverse existence and a believe in its existence is different no? A believe in god is mostly due to humans being aware of their inevitable demise. I'm not a multiverse fan nor a string theory fan, nor Einsteins fan for that matter although his theory is an incredible approximation of our observations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *