Originally posted by epiphinehas
You are referring to the Vacuum Fluctuation Model, which didn't outlive the 1980's. The problem with this model that proved fatal was its incoherency: (1) given infinite past time, every point in the infinite vacuum will have spawned a baby universe (the universes colliding and coalescing with each other—this even if the universes within that vacuum occurred an infinite distance apart)
[b]1) The big bang is not imcompatible with the assertion that this universe was spawned from one of infinitely many tendrils of an eternal multiverse
You are referring to the Vacuum Fluctuation Model, which didn't outlive the 1980's. The problem with this model that proved fatal was its incoherency: (1) given infinite past time, every point in t new avatar btw.[/b]
Thanks! The closest bolt of lightning I ever caught on camera...[/b]
I'm not familiar with the vacuum fluctuation model (I'm not a phycisist) and can't fit the wikipedia account to the ideas I'm thinking about. But anyway addressing a later point; there are different sizes of infinity - the argument that there must exist at least one point where one or more universes spawned by a multiverse must intersect is neither a necessary conclusion of infinite `time' (whatever it means to talk of temporality `outside' our universe), nor do I see, without any experience or insight into this phenomenon, why this should destroy such a proposition.
I'm more interested however in discussing why you think that there must necessarily be a collision...perhaps the cardinality of infinity when we talk about an infinite multiiverse is not big enough that such collisions should reasonably be expected to occur. Indeed, take the real number line for example; you can choose any integer (zero for example) and surround it by an interval of length strictly less than 2 units; you can then keep increasing the length of this interval for an infinite duration of time without this interval ever including -1 or 1 simply by centralising the interval on 0 and continuously halving the distance between its endpoints to -1 and 1.
It could be the case perhaps that the infinity of universes spawned by some multiverse might be identified with the size of infinity when we talk about the integers (or the rational numbers even).
(2) given infinite past time, we should be observing an infinitely old universe, not the relatively young one we do observe.
Local to our universe, the multiverse hypothesis does not imply infinite past time for us - indeed perhaps by some temporal mechanism unknown to us which is manifest in a multiverse, time could have started for us
*at* the big bang. (as modern physics suggests)
It doesn't suffice to provide a counter assertion that is incoherent, ad hoc, lacking of any corroborating scientific evidence, as well as being philosophically untenable—because it's not a viable option. You're going to have to do better than that to overthrow the Standard Big Bang Model and explain away the absolute beginning of space-time it predicts.
This model doesn't overthrow the big bang model, it is merely a generalisation of it (i.e. infinitely many universes experience big bangs). Also, the lack of evidence is moot when, as I said earlier, I'm using this as a counter assertion to "God necessarily caused the universe" since you have no more evidence for that than I have for the multiverse hypothesis. For the sake of fending off any conclusions in these sort of theist arguments that some "God" is necessarily responsible, the minimum requiement of a counter-proposal be that it not contradict itself. The burden on me is to argue it suffers no contradictions, the burden on you is to argue the contrary.