But doesn’t a multiverse cosmologist like Sean Carroll get to pick and choose the reality he prefers from an infinite variety? Who says there is only one reality, the one he doesn’t like?
Multiverse
Another sally against the Big Bang
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.
Listen to Mother Nature Network convince itself that parallel worlds exist
Nope. Not a chance the proposed evidence will matter. The parallel universe folk probably don’t like our universe because it shows massive evidence of fine-tuning and that implies an intelligent origin. Any alternative theory will always be popular, irrespective of evidence.
At Scientific American: Another whoop for the multiverse
All the Cool people believe in it, which is just so much better than evidence.
Sabine Hossenfelder on why the Anthropic Principle is controversial
It’s controversial because it is sometimes used to support the idea of a multiverse. Otherwise, it should be common sense to assume that a venue in which we exist must feature conditions that allow for that. But the multiverse does not need logic, evidence, or science.
John Horgan on how multiverse theories are bad for science
The Scientific American columnist is unimpressed by two recent books on the subject, cosmologist Sean Carroll’s Something Deeply Hidden and science writer Tom Siegfried’s The Number of the Heavens.
Is the multiverse “increasingly popular” among physicists?
The multiverse makes physics so cool that it is indistinguishable from self-indulgence.
Rob Sheldon: The quantum effects shown in large molecules may make theories like the multiverse testable
Sheldon: “By measuring a hot stream of molecules with billions of states, this experiment may rule out CSL [Continuous Spontaneous Localization]. If so, it would be the first time an interpretation of QM was actually invalidated, suggesting we have entered a new era of testing theories of the foundations of QM.”
Multiverse is science based on zero evidence, science writer complains
Baggott, of course, also feels the need to take the ritual swipe at ID. He must do so because he is allowed to criticize crackpot cosmology provided that he holds to no thesis about the nature of nature that would impede its actual advance. He can regret it but he must not undermine it.
Sabine Hossenfelder explains the problem with the “many worlds” hypothesis
Hossenfelder: In the many worlds interpretation, if you set up a detector for a measurement, then the detector will also split into several universes.
Sean Carroll: Where quantum probability comes from
His universe is deterministic, presumably, because everything happens. End of story. Actually, end of all stories.
Sean Carroll: A multiverse is the price we pay for unifying physics
Carroll: “The price we pay for such a powerful and simple unification of quantum dynamics is a large number of separate worlds.” Right. And the price you pay for suicide is that nothing you do in this world afterward matters.
Sean Carroll: Physicists don’t even want to understand quantum mechanics
Carroll wants a multiverse out of any new findings, one suspects. One question many might have is, apart from the lack of a multiverse, how bad is the current situation in physics? What, besides that, is going wrong?
At Nature: The “bizarre logic” of the multiverse is explored in a review
Crease writes as if he would very much like to buy into Carroll’s ideas but still thinks that sanity has something to offer. Possibly, many establishment science figures teeter on that brink.
What elements of fine-tuning of our universe (vs. the multiverse) would pass this test of science truth?
Ethan Siegel: Even the most successful scientific theories imaginable will, by their very nature, have a limited range of validity. But we can theorize whatever we like, and when a new theory meets the following three criteria…