Home » Cosmology, Intelligent Design, News » “Zero skepticism” and “outrageous hype,” not evidence, mark recent campaign to make multiverse respectable – mathematician

“Zero skepticism” and “outrageous hype,” not evidence, mark recent campaign to make multiverse respectable – mathematician

image of dark matter

In “The Ultimate Guide to the Multiverse” (Not Even Wrong, November 28, 2011) Peter Woit comments on the recent pep rally for the multiverse over at New Scientist:

Yet another cover story about the Multiverse can be found this week at New Scientist, which calls it The Ultimate Guide to the Multiverse. As just one more in a long line of such stories over the last decade, a trend that shows no signs of slowing down, one can be pretty sure that this is not the yet the “ultimate” one, nor even the penultimate one.

The content is the usual: absolutely zero skepticism about the idea, and lots of outrageous hype from the usual suspects (Bousso, Tegmark, Susskind, etc.) We’re told that scientists are now performing tests of the idea, even at the LHC. The LHC test has been a great success: Laura Mersini-Houghton used the multiverse to predict that the LHC would not see supersymmetry, and that prediction has worked out very well so far. There’s a companion editorial Neutrinos and multiverses: a new cosmology beckons, which tells us that the multiverse is now orthodoxy, backed by “almost everything in modern physics” …

It is orthodoxy, but it is not demonstrated As a matter of fact, the Large Hadron Collider tests have been very disappointing to multiverse fans in key areas for which they were anxiously awaiting hopeful results – we’ve documented a fair bit of that here at UD News.

But now we are told, “Laura Mersini-Houghton used the multiverse to predict that the LHC would not see supersymmetry, and that prediction has worked out very well so far.” Her prediction wasn’t big news at the time. But hold on, there’s more: As it happens – and this wasn’t big news either – here at UD News, we used the Ghost of Christmas Past to predict that the LHC would not see supersymmetry.

Oh, what’s that you say? Well, so ruddy what if there’s no evidence that the Ghost of Christmas Past exists? There’s no evidence that the multiverse exists either. Like the Ghost, it is a construct of certain people’s imaginations. And the most reasonable explanation for the absence of supersymmetry is that it doesn’t exist either, as Woit noted.

Strange are the contortions of the pop science mags, struggling to keep alive an idea nature does not need.

*See, for example: Higgs boson: Find it in one year or bust, top physicists say and
Glitzy new cosmology centre’s opening shadowed by disappointing Higgs boson news

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

7 Responses to “Zero skepticism” and “outrageous hype,” not evidence, mark recent campaign to make multiverse respectable – mathematician

  1. I will admit to more than a little skepticism about the multiverse.

  2. And I will admit to more than a little skepticism about the Ghost of Christmas Past. :)

  3. This is disgustingly typical. Repeat ad nauseum a claim and through time, the public won’t notice the claim is not founded on scientific evidence. This is how the darwinian myth became accepted by the public, despite lacking evidence to support it. And now, they have the multiverse. Why do they even bother going for degrees in scientific fields when they abandon the principles of it in exchange for wishful thinking??

  4. I don’t even believe in multi-vitamins.

  5. I’d give more credence to the Ghost of Christmas Past.

    But the most tragic part of it all is that, even if they COULD prove the multiverse, the multiverse would not accomplish what they think it does – which is to make a statistically improbable (if not impossible) thing – Darwinian Evolution – not only possible but inevitable.

    Infinite opportunities do not equal infinite exhaustion of all possible outcomes. But let’s set aside that small technicality.

    The real problem is very simple to explain. And I’ll do so by replacing Evolution with some other improbable thing: say, Joe Biden randomly playing the winning lottery ticket in every consecutive lottery for 75 years. Naturally, we would be suspicious about Joe Biden winning so many lotteries. In fact, even if we knew there were an infinite number of universes, and that in at least one of those universes, we should expect to find a Joe Biden who won the lottery for 75 years, we would STILL be suspicious. Why? Because randomness and design are not mutually exclusive. It could very well be that Random Joe exist somewhere in the multiverse; but that same multiverse could also contain any number of Intelligent Design Joes. And statistically speaking, I think most of us would wager that our Joe is one of the Design Joes. Otherwise, forensic science would go out the window, and we would have to wake up each morning believing a dozen improbable things before breakfast.

  6. Neither do I. It’s better to get your vitamins straight from the (hopefully genetically unaltered) food that grows in the ground.

  7. But now we are told, “Laura Mersini-Houghton used the multiverse to predict that the LHC would not see supersymmetry, and that prediction has worked out very well so far.” Her prediction wasn’t big news at the time.

    This is just how Darwinism works. We don’t see NS producing new clades; but it claims that it does so through a huge number of intermediate forms. But when the intermediate forms don’t show up, then they say the fossil record is incomplete. Nothing is seen at either end: IOW, it’s just like Houghton’s prediction that multiverse theory precludes seeing the Higgs—we don’t see multiverses, nor do we see Higgs bosons. Wonderful. And this is science at work?

Leave a Reply