The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Multiverse Theory Cannot Be Proven True Nor False

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,512 times Debate No: 64360
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)




Post your argument whenever you want, I just want to discuss the topic of the mainstream Multiverse Theory which should not be regarded as fact. The challenger may propose their argument for why and I shall post a rebuttal to their argument in the next round.


I look forward to debating this topic with you. Good Luck!

The universe we live in may not be the only one out there. In fact, our universe could be just one of an infinite number of universes making up a "multiverse."
Though the concept may stretch credulity, there's good physics behind it. And there's not just one way to get to a multiverse" numerous physics theories independently point to such a conclusion. In fact, some experts think the existence of hidden universe is more likely than not.
Here are the five most plausible scientific theories suggesting we live in a multiverse:

1. Infinite Universes
Scientists can't be sure what the shape of space-time is, but most likely, it's flat (as opposed to spherical or even donut-shape) and stretches out infinitely. But if space-time goes on forever, then it must start repeating at some point, because there are a finite number of ways particles can be arranged in space and time.
So if you look far enough, you would encounter another version of you " in fact, infinite versions of you. Some of these twins will be doing exactly what you're doing right now, while others will have worn a different sweater this morning, and still others will have made vastly different career and life choices.
Because the observable universe extends only as far as light has had a chance to get in the 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang (that would be 13.7 billion light-years), the space-time beyond that distance can be considered to be its own separate universe. In this way, a multitude of universes exists next to each other in a giant patchwork quilt of universes.

2. Bubble Universes
In addition to the multiple universes created by infinitely extending space-time, other universes could arise from a theory called "eternal inflation." Inflation is the notion that the universe expanded rapidly after the Big Bang, in effect inflating like a balloon. Eternal inflation, first proposed by Tufts University cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, suggests that some pockets of space stop inflating, while other regions continue to inflate, thus giving rise to many isolated "bubble universes."
Thus, our own universe, where inflation has ended, allowing stars and galaxies to form, is but a small bubble in a vast sea of space, some of which is still inflating, that contains many other bubbles like ours. And in some of these bubble universes, the laws of physics and fundamental constants might be different than in ours, making some universes strange places indeed.

3. Parallel Universes
Another idea that arises from string theory is the notion of "braneworlds" " parallel universes that hover just out of reach of our own, proposed by Princeton University's Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Ontario, Canada. The idea comes from the possibility of many more dimensions to our world than the three of space and one of time that we know. In addition to our own three-dimensional "brane" of space, other three-dimensional branes may float in a higher-dimensional space. Columbia University physicist Brian Greene describes the idea as the notion that "our universe is one of potentially numerous 'slabs' floating in a higher-dimensional space, much like a slice of bread within a grander cosmic loaf," in his book "The Hidden Reality" (Vintage Books, 2011).
A further wrinkle on this theory suggests these brane universes aren't always parallel and out of reach. Sometimes, they might slam into each other, causing repeated Big Bangs that reset the universes over and over again

4. Daughter Universes
The theory of quantum mechanics, which reigns over the tiny world of subatomic particles, suggests another way multiple universes might arise. Quantum mechanics describes the world in terms of probabilities, rather than definite outcomes. And the mathematics of this theory might suggest that all possible outcomes of a situation do occur " in their own separate universes. For example, if you reach a crossroads where you can go right or left, the present universe gives rise to two daughter universes: one in which you go right, and one in which you go left.
"And in each universe, there's a copy of you witnessing one or the other outcome, thinking " incorrectly " that your reality is the only reality," Greene wrote in "The Hidden Reality."

5. Mathematical Universes
Scientists have debated whether mathematics is simply a useful tool for describing the universe, or whether math itself is the fundamental reality, and our observations of the universe are just imperfect perceptions of its true mathematical nature. If the latter is the case, then perhaps the particular mathematical structure that makes up our universe isn't the only option, and in fact all possible mathematical structures exist as their own separate universes.
"A mathematical structure is something that you can describe in a way that's completely independent of human baggage," said Max Tegmark of MIT, who proposed this brain-twisting idea. "I really believe that there is this universe out there that can exist independently of me that would continue to exist even if there were no humans."
Debate Round No. 1


Abortion basically is the act of terminating the life of a developing fetus/embryo/baby.
Anyone who says abortion is murder, in reality is using the word incorrectly depending on where they live and what they believe. If they were to say that according to Biblical doctrine, then yes it is murder, but if it is in California where the state legalizes the act and the person does not believe in God, then no it is not murder according to them.
But you are essentially ending 1 or more lives (depending on how many twins are in the womb). If that were to happen to your wife, you might feel disgusted with the child and hearing the news of that tragic event and want it dead to dispose of the developing fetus, but that is still a precious life. I wouldn"t want to be in the position of the baby (life or death) just because of what happened to my mother. Yes rape is awful, but we need to not remain regretful on the past and focus on the present and future. If my mom was raped and didn"t want me due to flashbacks of the day she was brutally raped, I would rather not cause her emotional pain and be left in an orphanage. If the child knew the benefits from living life and the parts about life that make us hate it, the child might want to live or choose death for the mom"s sake but since its brain is not that developed it cannot hope to do that or comprehend that until years later. What"s wrong with registering the child for adoption? At least he/she gets to live and not be killed without it"s consent. There"s no reason to kill it especially when it has not done any physical harm to your body. If a prostitute got herself pregnant, why didn"t she use protection if she didn"t want to endure the possibility of getting pregnant & having a fetus in her womb? Because it was her fault for getting pregnant in the first place, she should not kill the child just to essentially "dump the responsibility" if she was merciful she would go with giving birth and register the child for adoption and/or leave it in an orphanage rather taking the child"s life for no reason at all. Though this is considered to be rare, but if the mother"s life is threatened, though I am against abortion, I am also pro-choice. The state nor anyone has the right to take away the rights of another individual, and since the baby is apart of the mom"s body until birth, its her call. But if there is a way to prevent ANYONE from dying, even risky, its better to preserve life through risk than subjectively choose who you believe is more important because ALL life is important. This is my stance on abortion.


Well that was interesting huh. I will not post an argument because that would give me an unfair advantage so back over to you Ramos.
Debate Round No. 2


FYI/Disclaimer: I apologize to all those who have seen my wasted round of me mentioning abortion etc. I had multiple tabs open and I was engaging in a separate debate with carriead20 and while I meant to post to the Abortion debate (which is now in the voting saga) I wasted a good round with that. Please skip round 2 if you are not interested in what I posted for what was meant to be for the Abortion debate and read this round since this is where I address my argument.

I shall post my reasons for believing why the Multiverse Theory can not be proven true nor false. First the Multiverse by definition is the idea that the Universe which is supposed to be everything there is in space such as celestial bodies, galaxies, asteroids, comets etc.
However the Multiverse Theory proposes that the Universe is not all of space and is defined as the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called Parallel Universes because as cosmologists and people believe, there's a hypothetical world where it has the same Universe as ours but with a different history, so lets say for example Brazil in a Parallel Universe is a super power in their planet Earth. The other types of Universes that carriead20 mentioned have not been proven to be true nor disproven because simply astronomers/cosmologists have never seen one. What I mean is this, the Multiverse Theory cannot be proven to have been seen because of the fact that our Universe has been going through Cosmic Inflation since it's beginning and to expand at a velocity greater than Light itself in all directions.
The issue with this is, even with the best equipment possible, we could never potentially view outside our Universe if it expands faster than light can travel, and telescopes would have to be ridiculously good enough to view trillions upon trillions of miles just to see "the next Universe" or outside our own. But this is a never ending problem which cannot be proven nor disproven unless we can escape this Universe which at this time, is impossible. If you look into a room with absolutely zero light, are you able to see what is inside of it? Apply that to the Multiverse Theory, and you should reach the same conclusion as me because my dark room example fits this perfectly and as of today the Horizon Problem (which is the problem I'm mentioning now) has not been solved and if you do the math, will never be solved unless Cosmic Inflation can be stopped and some ridiculously good telescopes can be constructed to see trillions (probably further than that) of miles away from Earth.

As for carriead20's mentioning about the Universe's shape, it's been deemed flat by cosmologists which does not match the Big Bang Model and is referred to as the Flatness Problem.


In recent years there have been many claims made for “evidence” of a multiverse, supposedly found in the CMB data (see for example here). Such claims often came with the remark that the Planck CMB data would convincingly decide the matter. When the Planck data was released two months ago, I looked through the press coverage and through the Planck papers for any sign of news about what the new data said about these multiverse evidence claims. There was very little there; possibly the Planck scientists found these claims to be so outlandish that it wasn’t worth the time to look into what the new data had to say about them. One exception was this paper, where Planck looked for evidence of “dark flow”. They found nothing, and a New Scientist article summarized the situation:

“The Planck team’s paper appears to rule out the claims of Kashlinsky and collaborators,” says David Spergel of Princeton University, who was not involved in the work. If there is no dark flow, there is no need for exotic explanations for it, such as other universes, says Planck team member Elena Pierpaoli at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “You don’t have to think of alternatives.”

One of those promoting the idea that “dark flow” was evidence for a multiverse was Mersini-Houghton, who in a 2008 paper with Holman wrote:

"Our contention, then, is that these observations of bulk flow can be construed as evidence for the birth of the universe from the landscape multiverse imprinted on the superhorizon sized nonlocal quantum entanglement between our horizon patch and others that began from the landscape. When we calculate the size of the induced dipole in our theory and convert it into a bulk velocity dispersion, we will see that for the constrained values of our parameters we arrive at a velocity dispersion of order 670 km/sec, remarkably close to the observed value of 700 km/sec."

One might think that the refutation of their prediction by the Planck data would be a problem. Instead though, the Sunday Times reported a few days ago that Scientists believe they have found the first evidence that other universes exist. The story got picked up by other news outlets, and appeared in the Daily Mail as “The first ‘hard evidence’ that other universes exist has been found by scientists”. The source for the story was Mersini-Houghton:

Laura Mersini-Houghton, theoretical physicist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Richard Holman, professor at Carnegie Mellon University, predicted that anomalies in radiation existed and were caused by the pull from other universes in 2005.
Now that she has studied the Planck data, Dr Mersini-Houghton believes her hypothesis has been proven.
Her findings imply there could be an infinite number of universes outside of our own.
She said: ‘These anomalies were caused by other universes pulling on our universe as it formed during the Big Bang.
‘They are the first hard evidence for the existence of other universes that we have seen.’

She will be in Britain soon promoting this at the Hay Festival on May 31 and at Oxford on June 11.

According to a New Scientist story just out, this hard evidence for the multiverse should be welcomed, since it (together with string theory) has just been shown to have the power to save us from “Legions of disembodied brains floating in deep space”. The story, which appeared in print as String Theory Limits Space Brain Threat starts with

LEGIONS of disembodied brains floating in deep space threaten to undermine our understanding of the universe. New mathematical modelling suggests string theory and its multiple universes may just provide our salvation – and that could win the controversial theory a few more backers.

It goes on to explain about Boltzmann brains and a recent paper by Bousso and Zukowski, and ends with news of yet another experimental success for string theory:

“This is potentially an added experimental success for string theory and eternal inflation,” says Daniel Harlow, a physicist at Princeton University. “We need to understand it better – [but] the fact that it potentially explains something is motivation to understand it better.”

Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by carriead20 6 years ago
Well it sucks that no one voted.
Posted by carriead20 6 years ago
Crap, the links didn't show up. Sorry viewers there should have been links in the text but DDO filtered them out.
Posted by carriead20 6 years ago
It would be greatly appreciated if you would. Thank You!
Posted by Ramos-7 6 years ago
Everyone who is reading this debate, please skip my response from round 2, I was debating carried20 in 2 different debates and while crafting a response to the one regarding abortion I accidentally posted my response on this one with the intention of having it on the Abortion Debate page.
Posted by Ramos-7 6 years ago
3 days and 10,000 characters
Posted by carriead20 6 years ago
What is the character limit and the time for arguments.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.