Cookies   I display ads to cover the expenses. See the privacy policy for more information. You can keep or reject the ads.

Video thumbnail
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.