Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Multiverse Gods, part 1

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

G-d, the failed hypothesisThe Fallacy of Fine-TuningVictor Stenger, a retired physics prof from the University of Hawaii, has given us two books that explain both atheism and “multiverses”, and behold, they are one. Few other proponents of multiverses are quite as forthcoming with their logic, but clearly something besides data must motivate the science of multiverses, because by definition multiverses are not observable. Stenger makes the connection explicit, whereas Hawking or Susskind is a little more coy with their metaphysics. Multiverse-theory is designed for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to defend atheism. It makes no predictions, it gives no insight, it provides no control, it produces no technology, it advances no mathematics, it is a science in name only, because it is really metaphysics.

In Stenger’s first book, G-d: the failed hypothesis, he argues that Science is an independent and more reliable way to truth than metaphysics. And in his second book, The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, he argues that metaphysics (multiverse theory) is a more reliable guide than science (design-detection). With these two books then, we can get anything we want, except ethics. And metaphysics. And science.

Read more…

Comments
Driver,
Clive – So if not predictions, how do you incorporate the supernatural into a scientific theory? It’s one thing not meeting all the criteria of a scientific theory, it’s quite another not meeting any.
How do you keep "predictions" as the golden rule but not "falsifiability"? Why do you draw this line? it seems rather too convenient. This sounds like philosophy of science, in which my philosophy of science is that we do not know the difference between natural and supernatural to begin with, but have arbitrary criteria such as repeatability, but repeatability is not an explanation in logic, it is only an observation. it would not be logically impossible, like 2+2=0, for a bird to give live birth like a mammal, we just observe that that doesn't happen in our experience. All observations and connections between any two things connected physically are not explanations as to why they are connected philosophically as ideas, therefore our determinations of natural and supernatural can only hinge on repeated observation, but why is this valid? It appeals only to our sense of pragmatism, but isn't itself a sound logical determination as an explanation of why two things are connected philosophically. Clive Hayden
June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
09:50 AM
9
09
50
AM
PDT
Nullasalus: can you give a definition of "supernatural" in the sense that you are using the term. I think it would be helpful.Elizabeth Liddle
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
Nullasalus,
According to the wikipedia: Boltzmann’s kinetic theory of gases seemed to presuppose the reality of atoms and molecules, but almost all German philosophers and many scientists like Ernst Mach and the physical chemist Wilhelm Ostwald opposed their existence. So tell me, Driver. Should the common man have believed in atoms at the time? After all, many – and according to other sources, most – scientists did not believe in the reality of atoms at the time. And I’d suggest that one reason acceptance of atoms right now is not controversial is because they’re observable. The funny thing is, you’ve got yourself a dilemma. If we should let the consensus of scientists determine what is and isn’t science, then apparently it would have been right to reject Boltzmann’s ideas of atoms.
Scientists can be wrong, for sure. I've never been arguing that they couldn't. There's never been any doubt in my mind that Carroll and Susskind could be wrong about multiverses. We would have justification for our belief that atoms probably didn't exist. We would still have made an informed decision, but it would have been wrong. A belief can be justified but wrong. We would have been "right" (justified) to believe, but our belief would have been wrong (false). There are many false beliefs that we would have been justified believing in the past. Once, it would have seemed entirely sensible that the world was flat. Or that the sun went round the Earth. Or that man could never fly. Now, from our current perspective we would be able to correct Mach et al, since we now know that atoms exist. Yes, because they are observable, but the key point is that they were once thought to be unscientific because they were unobservable. In fact, many thought they were in principle unobservable. We now know that idea to be wrong. We have further reason to believe that unobservables are part of science, since we have quarks and dark matter now. So what we would have been justified believing in 1904 is very different from what we would be justified in believing now.
But if Boltzmann’s ideas of atoms should have been accepted well in advance of actual detection and observation, then it seems that the consensus of scientists doesn’t determine what we should believe or accept as science, and we can have good reason to reject what most scientists determine is and is not science.
Boltzmann's model was a good one whether atoms actually existed or not. So in a sense it should have been accepted well in advance of detection of atoms. However, it was accepted as established science once the consensus of scientists accepted the reality of atoms, mainly I think thanks to Einstein's 1905 paper which statistically inferred them from Brownian motion. In the same way, if the multiverse theory gains evidential support, albeit indirectly, it will be accepted by the consensus of cosmologists. It often takes a theory a while to be established. That doesn't mean that I as a layman should believe in all new ideas. Nor does it mean that I shouldn't accept established science. Your dilemma is of course false. Simply put, belief, justification for belief, knowledge, and truth and are all slightly different things. Considering that would see you past the apparent dilemma.Driver
June 27, 2011
June
06
Jun
27
27
2011
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
The key point however is that the meta-laws are regularities, i.e law-like. I say that if they are natural processes they are part of nature, even if not in this universe. And this is a pretty recent turn of events for 'natural'. What makes the processes 'natural processes' anyway? That they're observable? Ah, but then we see the problem in this case. If you define the supernatural as conforming to laws, then I suppose it would be in principle detectable. I would have thought that that was not an acceptable definition of the supernatural, however. Would the laws themselves be supernatural? Or do the laws have to conform to laws also? I am prepared to listen to what they say and take it seriously. I find their ideas interesting. Of course, the multiverse idea may be wrong, but if they say it is scientific, I am credulous enough to believe them. And why won't you believe George Ellis, himself a cosmologist, when he says that multiverses are philosophy, not science? I quoted what he had to say above - he's not exactly fringe. Or do you just let your heart decide or somesuch? No. Why not? I mean, they'd be the experts in their field, right? They're the ones who study the stuff for a living - such as it is - and get the appropriate education - again, such as it is. Now you've switched from saying you should be credulous enough to trust the consensus of scientists in a field to, well... ditching the consensus. Why is that? We’re not talking about the Omega Point. We're talking about what is and is not considered science. Carroll brought up Deutsch, I'm bringing up something else Deutsch considered to follow from the physics - the Omega Point. You tell me if the Omega Point - aka, 'God', according to Frank Tipler - is scientific speculation. And if it's not, then it seems Deutsch's idea of what is and is not scientific is problematic. Regarding the observability of atoms, they were unobservable in Boltzmann’s time. That is the point. And now, they're observable. Ah, but it gets better. According to the wikipedia: Boltzmann's kinetic theory of gases seemed to presuppose the reality of atoms and molecules, but almost all German philosophers and many scientists like Ernst Mach and the physical chemist Wilhelm Ostwald opposed their existence. So tell me, Driver. Should the common man have believed in atoms at the time? After all, many - and according to other sources, most - scientists did not believe in the reality of atoms at the time. And I'd suggest that one reason acceptance of atoms right now is not controversial is because they're observable. The funny thing is, you've got yourself a dilemma. If we should let the consensus of scientists determine what is and isn't science, then apparently it would have been right to reject Boltzmann's ideas of atoms. But if Boltzmann's ideas of atoms should have been accepted well in advance of actual detection and observation, then it seems that the consensus of scientists doesn't determine what we should believe or accept as science, and we can have good reason to reject what most scientists determine is and is not science. Which one will you go for?nullasalus
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
The laws of the universe are also beyond natural regularities – hence the talk of ‘meta-laws’.
The key point however is that the meta-laws are regularities, i.e law-like. I say that if they are natural processes they are part of nature, even if not in this universe.
Ah, but then it looks like the supernatural can be tested.
Does it? The problem is regularities (law-like behaviour) that are detectable by us as supernatural.
nothing’s stopping me from suggesting the supernatural is just a meta-case of natural law. Because the definitions are that fluid
If you define the supernatural as conforming to laws, then I suppose it would be in principle detectable. I would have thought that that was not an acceptable definition of the supernatural, however.
how do you know who is or is not an expert in a given field
Good question.
particular in a case like this, which even Carroll, in your very own article, admits departs from what is typically considered science in the majority of cases?
Carroll is a theoretical cosmologist in the Department of Physics at the California Institute of Technology. Of course, the most famous proponent of the multiverse is Leonard Susskind, Felix Bloch professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford. I am prepared to listen to what they say and take it seriously. I find their ideas interesting. Of course, the multiverse idea may be wrong, but if they say it is scientific, I am credulous enough to believe them.
Does this mean that you trust parapsychologists
No. :D
by all means defend David Deutsch’s take on the Omega Point if you like
We're not talking about the Omega Point. What about Deutsch's take on "hard boiled" instrumentalism. Or would you like to talk about the Omega Point instead? Regarding the observability of atoms, they were unobservable in Boltzmann's time. That is the point. Other unobservables are quarks and dark matter. Do you concede that these are science?Driver
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT
Clive, On predictions – it’s one criterion of a scientific theory. Not an essential criterion of all facets of a scientific theory. Consistency, it’s tough for some. The funny thing is, in that Carroll article referenced, one of the key points of it is downplaying the importance of predictions such that "at not every prediction of every theory needs to be testable; what needs to be testable is the framework as a whole". So, testable predictions aren't essential. Falsifiability is not essential. Apparently, what's really essential is if scientists tell you 'this is scientific, darnit'.nullasalus
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT
The problem with the supernatural is there is no mechanism – it’s beyond natural regularities, by definition. The laws of the universe are also beyond natural regularities - hence the talk of 'meta-laws'. I guess the multiverse is supernatural, eh? Ah, but then it looks like the supernatural can be tested. Admittedly, that changes the definition you were going by, but changing definitions seems to be the name of the game with you. (Keep in mind, if you say that meta-natural laws are natural all the same, nothing's stopping me from suggesting the supernatural is just a meta-case of natural law. Because the definitions are that fluid.) I did not bring it up as a standard for science, but as an indicator for the non-suspicious layman. Non-suspicious. What's wrong with 'credulous'? That seems more apt. I consider a trust of the consensus of experts to be an informed decision, especially on a matter which does not require a belief. Of course, there are arguments and conspiracy theories against trusting experts in certain circumstances. What 'conspiracy theory' did I offer here, which you're implying? And how do you know who is or is not an expert in a given field - particular in a case like this, which even Carroll, in your very own article, admits departs from what is typically considered science in the majority of cases? Does this mean that you trust parapsychologists over physicists when it comes to determining how to interpret purported displays of - or research about - parapsychology? As for Carroll, by all means defend David Deutsch's take on the Omega Point if you like. And regarding the observability of atoms: perhaps this will be of some help.nullasalus
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
Clive - So if not predictions, how do you incorporate the supernatural into a scientific theory? It's one thing not meeting all the criteria of a scientific theory, it's quite another not meeting any.Driver
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
08:56 PM
8
08
56
PM
PDT
And we don’t need to ‘conclude’. We just need to infer, remember? We don’t even need to directly observe anything supernatural existing – it’s enough if our theory lets us infer it was responsible for this or that. Like, say, CMB signatures.
To start with you need a mechanism for producing the evidence in the CMB signatures. That's what Matt Johnson and his teams were working on. With the Planck data they hope to find evidence of bubble collisions. The problem with the supernatural is there is no mechanism - it's beyond natural regularities, by definition.
I asked you why, in the face of various problems, we should regard multiverse speculations as science. Your reply: “Because the actual scientists working on cosmology problems take the idea seriously.” You’re the one who brought that up as the standard for science, not me.
There's the misunderstanding. I did not bring it up as a standard for science, but as an indicator for the non-suspicious layman. I concede the point though. I do not have the inclination to argue against your skepticism.
So, you’re saying that by your own standards you’re making uninformed decisions about science by taking a position on the multiverse, and that we should be agnostic on the question? Or is it that making an uninformed decision is okay in this case?
I consider a trust of the consensus of experts to be an informed decision, especially on a matter which does not require a belief. Of course, there are arguments and conspiracy theories against trusting experts in certain circumstances. I will in this instance respect your skepticism.
letting off a strong whiff of “I just want to consider multiverses as science, having to justify that actually sorta sucks.”
I agree with everything Sean Carroll says in his article. I do not see the need to reparse an eloquent speaker. If there is anything you want to raise about what he actually says about science in his article then that would be interesting. For example, we could discuss David Deutsch's critique of "hard boiled" instrumentalism, or the case of Boltzmann and his unobservable "atoms".Driver
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
Driver,
On unfalsifiability – it’s one criterion of a scientific theory. Not an essential criterion of all facets of a scientific theory.
The problem with the supernatural is NOT in principle detecting a natural effect. The problem is the inference to the supernatural. For how, based on natural effects, do you conclude that the origin is supernatural? Especially if the supernatural is not in principle limited in its effects. There is no mechanism for the supernatural by which you can make further predictions.
On predictions – it’s one criterion of a scientific theory. Not an essential criterion of all facets of a scientific theory. Consistency, it's tough for some. Clive Hayden
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
When they do, get back to me. I don't need to. I'm pointing out the flaw in your standard, now. If your standard is 'If they do, then it's not science, I'll change my definition' then - lo and behold - science isn't whatever scientists say it is. It's an improvement, but it'd mean you're being disingenuous here. ;) On unfalsifiability – it’s one criterion of a scientific theory. Not an essential criterion of all facets of a scientific theory. Right. First, your prime 'criterion' here so far is 'whether scientists think it's science'. And I like that - unfalsifiability is not an essential criterion. Not anymore, anyway. ;) Bubble collisions are one way in which other universes could leave an imprint on our universe. So you cannot say that in principle other universes are undetectable. I said in principle unobservable, and that they cannot be experimented on. You added in 'undetectable'. If you're going to reduce detectability to 'asserting that this or that feature could have maybe possibly been the result of a multiverse somehow', go for it. It's a nice way to make detectability nigh-meaningless. For how, based on natural effects, do you conclude that the origin is supernatural? Especially if the supernatural is not in principle limited in its effects. There is no mechanism for the supernatural by which you can make further predictions. Oh really? And here I thought that saying things like that was somehow an affront to science. We had to say 'no mechanism - so far!', and that scientists could, if they wanted, devote themselves to theories about the supernatural and trying to find ways to test and detect the supernatural. And that this endeavor would be scientific. And we don't need to 'conclude'. We just need to infer, remember? We don't even need to directly observe anything supernatural existing - it's enough if our theory lets us infer it was responsible for this or that. Like, say, CMB signatures. ;) I am not presenting the fact that cosmologists take multiverses seriously as a “standard of science”. In some ways I admire your skepticism of cosmologists. I'm not skeptical of cosmologists. I'm skeptical of 'theories' about the unobservable, that which cannot be experimented on, and the unfalsifiable being called 'science'. That some cosmologists are caught up in that is a minor issue. I asked you why, in the face of various problems, we should regard multiverse speculations as science. Your reply: "Because the actual scientists working on cosmology problems take the idea seriously." You're the one who brought that up as the standard for science, not me. If you want to back off on it, you go right ahead. The only problem with it is that to make an informed decision is you have to know as much about cosmology as a cosmologist. So, you're saying that by your own standards you're making uninformed decisions about science by taking a position on the multiverse, and that we should be agnostic on the question? Or is it that making an uninformed decision is okay in this case? My comparison to homeopaths in India was to illustrate the glaring problem with your "You can tell something is scientific if scientists think it is" standard. Saying that I was comparing cosmologists to homeopaths is flat out dishonest. As for having a useful conversation, I'm still waiting for that to happen with far more basic topics. As it is, you're all over the map - and letting off a strong whiff of "I just want to consider multiverses as science, having to justify that actually sorta sucks."nullasalus
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT
But if they did
When they do, get back to me. On unfalsifiability - it's one criterion of a scientific theory. Not an essential criterion of all facets of a scientific theory.
Sure, just like God or the supernatural can’t be said to be undetectable in principle. Or anything else. Because, for all we know, maybe one day…
Bubble collisions are one way in which other universes could leave an imprint on our universe. So you cannot say that in principle other universes are undetectable. The principle has been established. The challenge then is to provide a mechanism that makes further predictions. The problem with the supernatural is NOT in principle detecting a natural effect. The problem is the inference to the supernatural. For how, based on natural effects, do you conclude that the origin is supernatural? Especially if the supernatural is not in principle limited in its effects. There is no mechanism for the supernatural by which you can make further predictions.
Because science is just ‘what guys who call themselves scientists say is science’.
No. Science is not "just" anything. I am not presenting the fact that cosmologists take multiverses seriously as a "standard of science". In some ways I admire your skepticism of cosmologists. It is not of a form that my own skepticism takes. The only problem with it is that to make an informed decision is you have to know as much about cosmology as a cosmologist. I love your comparison of cosmologists to homeopaths in India! Sean Carroll presents plenty of standards and explanations in his article. If you want to discuss any of that then perhaps we can have a useful conversation.Driver
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT
Yes, but they won’t. But if they did, it'd be science, period. Because that's your standard - science is whatever scientists say it is at any time. Splendid. Incidentally, I did not say unfalsifiability was not a barrier. I said it was not the be all and end all. So, you didn't say unfalsifiability was not a barrier. Just that it's, apparently, not a good reason to reject something as being scientific. So... not a barrier after all. The point is that you cannot then say that other universes are undetectable in principle. Sure, just like God or the supernatural can't be said to be undetectable in principle. Or anything else. Because, for all we know, maybe one day... Well that’s from the cosmologist’s blog article on Science and Unobservable Things. In all things, if his article doesn’t persuade you, then I can’t. Do you think I walked in here thinking that no scientists thought multiverse speculations were science? Unlike you, I don't consider a scientist's whim to determine what is or is not science. Maybe the reason you can't persuade me on this is because your standards for what qualifies as science are pretty ad hoc and leave a lot to be desired. That which is unobservable or cannot be experimented on can now be scientific. Unfalsifiable? Hey, it can still be scientific. Because science is just 'what guys who call themselves scientists say is science'. Hey, next time you need medical help, I have a suggestion: Homeopathy. It's recognized as legitimate, at least in India. So, travel to India, and it will magically become science. It may be pseudoscience elsewhere though, where other scientists disagree more vehemently. ;)nullasalus
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
07:06 PM
7
07
06
PM
PDT
The important thing with science is constructing an explanatory framework that incorporates testable predictions. By a revised, hackneyed definition of science I suppose.
Well that's from the cosmologist's blog article on Science and Unobservable Things. In all things, if his article doesn't persuade you, then I can't.Driver
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
and which even the proponents regard as weak and speculative at best
The point is that you cannot then say that other universes are undetectable in principle.Driver
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
The Thumb of Thor dented our universe. Get some scientists researching that, Driver. By your definition, if all they do is publish some papers about it, the Thumb of Thor hypothesis will be science upon the instant.
Yes, but they won't. ;) I was making the observation that cosmologists are competent to define what cosmology is. If anyone could give scientific reasons for the Thumb of Thor hypothesis, or any design hypothesis, that would be great. Incidentally, I did not say unfalsifiability was not a barrier. I said it was not the be all and end all.Driver
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
06:44 PM
6
06
44
PM
PDT
Not true. Who says other universes don’t leave an imprint on our universe? Remember this? Yes - a vague circular formation in CMB data which someone argues maybe possibly could have in theory been made by a bubble universe, and which even the proponents regard as weak and speculative at best. And of course, if there was no imprint, that wouldn't falsify the existence of the multiverse - remember that time when I repeatedly asked you what would falsify the multiverse, and you conceded that nothing could, but gosh, maybe someday something can and unfalsifiability is not a barrier to a claim being scientific anymore? Also possible: The Thumb of Thor dented our universe. Get some scientists researching that, Driver. By your definition, if all they do is publish some papers about it, the Thumb of Thor hypothesis will be science upon the instant. ;)nullasalus
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
the fact that universes other than our own are unobservable and not subject to being experimented upon, even in principle
Not true. Who says other universes don't leave an imprint on our universe? Remember this?Driver
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT
Driver, The important thing with science is constructing an explanatory framework that incorporates testable predictions. By a revised, hackneyed definition of science I suppose. But really, that much has been established by saying in effect 'science is whatever gets written about in journals, or whatever a scientist writes a paper about if he calls it science'. I’m sure Sean Carroll isn’t against any scientific hypothesis in principle. He even thinks the purportedly supernatural can be studied by science. Well, as far as it interacts with the natural world. Nice and evasive. No, Sean Carroll wouldn't be against any 'scientific hypothesis'. But he'd damn well regard some hypotheses as unscientific. It's whether the hypotheses are scientific to begin with that's under discussion. If someone comes up with a way to test whether the universe is designed, I’m sure scientists would be all for it. Scientists, even ones who are prepared to entertain the idea of the multiverse, are all for empirical test! But apparently we don't need an empirical test for whether the universe is or isn't designed anyway. All we need is to infer it from a hypothesis that has some empirical basis, and from which design would be an inference. Further, plenty of scientists don't regard multiverse speculations as science. Peter Woit, for example. George Ellis for another. So apparently, the multiverse both is and is not science, because scientists both do and do not regard it as scientific. Glad we cleared that up. So much for science's clarity and objectivity. Now we need polls of subjective opinion to determine if something is scientific or not. This is making Post-Modernism look organized by comparison.nullasalus
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
06:11 PM
6
06
11
PM
PDT
so ‘unfalsifiability’ has now evaporated as a reason to exclude ID from science. Down goes one argument. The complaints that the designer is unobservable and not open to experimentation also fall.
I actually agree. Falsifiability is a retrodiction of Popper's. It's very useful, but I don't think it's the be all and end all. The important thing with science is constructing an explanatory framework that incorporates testable predictions. The problem with ID research as it stands is not that it fails one criterion for scientific theories.
Wow. So, science is whatever scientists say it is.
In terms of the hypotheses they discuss, absolutely, yes. This doesn't make the multiverse idea true, of course, but I think it's churlish to say it isn't scientific. Many scientific papers have been written about multiverses and published in established scientific journals.
Wonderful. Go tell Sean Carroll your thoughts on science, and what accepting the multiverse as a valid scientific endeavor is leading you to as far as conclusions about science goes.
I'm sure Sean Carroll isn't against any scientific hypothesis in principle. He even thinks the purportedly supernatural can be studied by science. Well, as far as it interacts with the natural world. If someone comes up with a way to test whether the universe is designed, I'm sure scientists would be all for it. Scientists, even ones who are prepared to entertain the idea of the multiverse, are all for empirical test!Driver
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
Driver, Science’s track record of making firm predictions about things. Either way, there is no a priori reason to assume that the multiverse is outside the scope of science. Science's "track record" was far and away built upon that which is A) observable, B) open to experimentation, and C) within our observable universe, to give a few limitations. Not to mention this little thing D) avoiding unfalsifiable claims. And I'd think the fact that universes other than our own are unobservable and not subject to being experimented upon, even in principle, would be a good reason to consider multiverses outside the scope of science. Correct. We should not just assume that a hypothesis is unfalsifiable. It's not "assumed", it falls out of what a multiverse is. Either way, great - so 'unfalsifiability' has now evaporated as a reason to exclude ID from science. Down goes one argument. The complaints that the designer is unobservable and not open to experimentation also fall. Because the actual scientists working on cosmology problems take the idea seriously. Wow. So, science is whatever scientists say it is. What they're actually saying, the reasoning behind it - all this hardly matters. You can know what is and isn't science by taking a head count. I'm not sure what's worse - this, or the idea that a courtroom judge can decide what is or isn't science with a ruling. Really, it doesn’t matter if you or I regard the multiverse as scientific. It only matters to the degree that you want to rule OUT the multiverse hypothesis. Who said I wanted to rule out the multiverse hypothesis? I said you can rule it in if you like - it just isn't science. It's philosophy, metaphysics, and (a)theology. But apparently science is decided by popular vote now, so, hey. In principle, why not? Until we have an answer, the more hypotheses the merrier. Wonderful. Go tell Sean Carroll your thoughts on science, and what accepting the multiverse as a valid scientific endeavor is leading you to as far as conclusions about science goes. I'm sure he'll be ecstatic.nullasalus
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
Considering some multiverse speculations entail or vastly raise the likelihood that some universes are designed, why shouldn’t ID with regards to our universe be entertained as a scientific hypothesis?
In principle, why not? Until we have an answer, the more hypotheses the merrier. I think there are practical difficulties in design detection. Otherwise I assume Dembski or someone would have calculated the CSI of the universe.Driver
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
What is it about ‘the multiverse’ which makes you think it can be a thing for which firm predictions are made about it regardless?
Science's track record of making firm predictions about things. Either way, there is no a priori reason to assume that the multiverse is outside the scope of science.
At what point wouldn’t it be premature? Or is it just that we can never say that anything is unfalsifiable because gosh, who knows what tomorrow will bring?
Correct. We should not just assume that a hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
In which case, apparently scientists should be working on hypotheses that our universe is intelligently designed, eh?
I don't know why you are being sarcastic about that on this site.
before you play the card you played with PaV, I’ll note that nothing about that hypothesis would necessitate ‘the supernatural’
It was PaV who posited the idea that the multiverse was an idea "to keep atheists happy." It was his inference to the supernatural, not mine.
Why, in the face of all this and on top of the issues of these other universes being intrinsically unobservable and unable to be experimented on, should multiverse speculations be regarded as scientific?
Because the actual scientists working on cosmology problems take the idea seriously. Really, it doesn't matter if you or I regard the multiverse as scientific. It only matters to the degree that you want to rule OUT the multiverse hypothesis. I have no theological or philosophical issue with the concept, so I have no desire to rule it out on principle.Driver
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
05:00 PM
5
05
00
PM
PDT
Nullasalus, I don’t know what would falsify the existence of a multiverse, because there is not yet any multiverse theory which makes firm predictions. What is it about 'the multiverse' which makes you think it can be a thing for which firm predictions are made about it regardless? ... It would be premature to say that the multiverse hypothesis is in principle unfalsifiable. At what point wouldn't it be premature? Or is it just that we can never say that anything is unfalsifiable because gosh, who knows what tomorrow will bring? In which case, apparently scientists should be working on hypotheses that our universe is intelligently designed, eh? And before you play the card you played with PaV, I'll note that nothing about that hypothesis would necessitate 'the supernatural' - not that that word has much meaning anymore, given the contortions done to 'natural'. Let's see where we stand: You can't think of anything that could falsify the multiverse. The one example you gave in a link wouldn't do the trick, because the existence of the multiverse, even of bubble universes, would still be consistent with the lack of a CMB signature - and any presence of one could have alternate explanations. Why, in the face of all this and on top of the issues of these other universes being intrinsically unobservable and unable to be experimented on, should multiverse speculations be regarded as scientific? Bonus question: Considering some multiverse speculations entail or vastly raise the likelihood that some universes are designed, why shouldn't ID with regards to our universe be entertained as a scientific hypothesis? That is, assuming you don't agree that ID is science.nullasalus
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
Multiverse theory was invented to refute the ‘fine-tuning’ argument, or, better known as the Anthropic Principle. IOW, it was invented to keep atheists happy.
Fine tuning and the anthropic principle are not the same thing. Nor is the multiverse and the anthropic principle the same thing. Anyway, you raise an issue that harks back to the discussion on science and the supernatural. Science looks for explanations of what is seen in nature. While the multiverse is actually more than simply an explanation of fine tuning, it is true that scientific theories attempt to explain what is seen in nature. There are several possibilities to explain apparent fine tuning. This is how science proceeds - by coming up with hypotheses. It would not be scientific to infer the supernatural from apparent fine tuning as that is to preclude the natural possibilities which have not been ruled out. It is a simple fact that the cause of the physical constants of our universe is at present unknown, whatever anyone wants to believe.Driver
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
Nullasalus, I don't know what would falsify the existence of a multiverse, because there is not yet any multiverse theory which makes firm predictions. If there are no predictions there can be no falsification. It would be premature to say that the multiverse hypothesis is in principle unfalsifiable.Driver
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT
To whom it may concern: The "multivers" hypothesis, per Widipedia, comes from Wm James in 1895---well before Einstein and QM. Inflation was invented to explain the uniformity of the cosmic background radiation. Multiverse theory was invented to refute the 'fine-tuning' argument, or, better known as the Anthropic Principle. IOW, it was invented to keep atheists happy. Brian Greene says that the LHC may give us some signature of the existence of multiverses. I'm not sure what he's talking about. But multiverses, almost per definition, are cut off from us. So, isn't 'design' a more powerful 'signature' in our universe of the presence of another otherwise invisible reality than anything the LHC will turn up? Lizzie, I wouldn't defend multiverse much. It appears like religion, not science.PaV
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
Driver, As I said, you are being premature. As I asked, please spell out for me explicitly what would falsify the multiverse. As in, showing "The multiverse exists" is false. Or is this a roundabout way of telling me that you can't think of anything that could falsify the multiverse?nullasalus
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Driver, spell out for me explicitly what would falsify the multiverse. As in, showing “The multiverse exists” is false.
As I said, you are being premature. Since I don't believe the multiverse idea is true, you don't believe the multiverse idea is true, and Sean Carroll doesn't believe the multiverse idea is true, there's not much more to say. Certainly there is no a priori reason to think it false, so cosmologists like Sean will continue to explore the idea for now, because it is potentially fruitful. Hopefully to where it leads them to be able to make predictions.Driver
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Driver, Premature. There are hints at testability already. Driver, spell out for me explicitly what would falsify the multiverse. As in, showing "The multiverse exists" is false. If you read the first link I posted you will see Sean Caroll saying I read it and commented on part of it already. That Carroll will happily believe in that which is unobservable and untestable in a hypothetical scenario where a tangentially related test allows him to extrapolate the data, perhaps unto infinity, says it all. As for your current link, even the prospect of another universe 'bouncing' against ours and leaving its mark is faint stuff to say the least. And likewise, failing to find those signatures won't falsify the existence of the multiverse - that much is strongly suggested by the article alone.nullasalus
June 26, 2011
June
06
Jun
26
26
2011
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply