Look at it like this: If the multiverse prevails instead, science can be opened up to a vast variety of viewpoints and interests. Because facts really won’t matter any more.
Sabine Hossenfelder: Physicists may simply have produced a lot of mathematical stories about how it all began, but these aren’t any better than traditional tales of creation.
We need to go back to Philip Johnson’s insight 30 years ago. At that time the creationists were all attacking each other over local/global flood, the meaning of “yom”, the historicity of Adam, etc, whereas the Darwinists had a united front–Darwin was a genius. What Johnson discovered, was that the Darwinists had a huge internal battle over nearly every assumption of their model, but politically were unified in their opposition to Creation. By putting his finger on their critical assumption of Methodological Naturalism, which was contrary to nature and to nature’s laws, Johnson was able to unite the creationists behind this cause and turn the tables.
Sheldon: The recent publication of the Italians+Silk paper has now voiced the unspeakable: there is something wrong with the Lambda-CDM Big Bang model, and by inference, the 2011 Nobel Prize. Neither “dark matter” nor “dark energy” seem to exist in a form that makes the model work.
Interesting. But where did your Big Bang get the flame, guys? No fuel, no flame; no flame, no mechanism. Or have you discovered creation ex nihilo?
Via a curious universal pattern of correlated pairs of objects.
Or is it just not giving some people the answers they want?
If one is just looking for something to be snarky about, it is best not to engage with any serious issues. In that case, puffing popular Darwinism at every opportunity is the best choice available. There’s sure no Nobel for that.
Hossenfelder: The standard model works just fine with that number and it fits the data. But a small number like this, without explanation, is ugly and particle physicists didn’t want to believe nature could be that ugly.
Penrose surely offers a more thoughtful debate than Dawkins (who refused to debate Craig) and Krauss (who did but complained afterward) anyway. Too bad we had to wait till 2019 to see it.
The media release refers to “time before the Big Bang.” The idea that time did not begin, for our purposes, with the Big Bang would be contested by some. That raises arrow-of-time issues.
Siegel: In order for inflation to end, that energy has to get converted into matter and radiation. The evidence strongly points to that happening some 13.8 billion years ago.
Actually, multiverse cosmology would make a starting point irrelevant or else subject to endless redefinition. Powell’s bookmark-able summary can’t address the problem, of course, but that’s precisely what the multiverse does. Facts no longer matter much because contradictory facts have equal status.
It’s quite clear that Siegel’s objection to the idea of a beginning to the universe is philosophical. Most of the nonsense one hears, generally, can be traced to unwillingness to admit that.
At Quanta: After two years of sparring, the groups have traced their technical disagreement to differing beliefs about how nature works.