Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

How to make the multiverse less destructive to physics

Denyse O'Leary
September 3, 2014
Cosmology, Multiverse, News
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Make it about art, self-expression, and sidewalk cafes. Like these people were doing last month:

The Shapiro Center presents an evening of cosmology in collaboration with COSMO 2014 and the Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics (KICP) at the University of Chicago. The “multiverse” theory posits that our universe is but one of an enormous number of separate and distinct universes. This theme has inspired science fiction, literature and art. Cosmologists and artists who use cosmological themes in their work will participate in this installment of “Conversations on Art and Science,” a lecture series launched in 2011 by SAIC president Walter Massey.

Artist Anna Von Martens will discuss her textile compositions that use computer programs to accurately map out the rotation of the stars and planets; SAIC Professor Kathryn Schaffer will discuss her production of the zine series “The Small Science Collective”; and artist Julie R. Amrany and scientist Emil Martinec will discuss their collaborative work based on the theories of black holes.

The University of Chicago’s Michael S. Turner will moderate a provocative discussion on the multiverse with panelists: Raphael Bousso, a theoretical physicist at UC Berkeley, Rocky Kolb, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago, Eva Silverstein, a MacArthur Fellow at Stanford University, Jeff Harvey, a string theorist at the University of Chicago, and 2014 Kavli Prize winner Andrei Linde from Stanford University.

This makes so much sense. When the textiles find their way into fashion, w can add a catwalk too.

Guys, here’s a great idea: Don’t come back from the reception. Physics will get on just fine. Deal?

Oops, they probably did wander back. Oh well, … maybe after we add the catwalk, cultural narratives, more exhibits, and …

See also: The multiverse as the most dangerous idea in physics (Ellis: Similar claims have been made since antiquity by many cultures. What is new is the assertion that the multiverse is a scientific theory)

Multiverse cosmology: Assuming that evidence still matters, what does it say?

and

In search of a road to reality

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Leonard shows the 4 explanations. 1)God...please no 2) Accident....impossibly improbable 3) Megaverse ie Multiverse....Hmm interesting 4) TBD, but it would end up as 2) Leonard votes for 3)ppolish
September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PST
I enjoy listening to Leonard Susskind. This is a very good summary of fine-tuning; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s&feature=youtube_gdata_playerppolish
September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PST
leodp
Why does no one complain that, being unobservable and untestable, the multiverse is not a ‘scientific’ theory?
Objection to a theory because it's not "observable" assumes that we can observe causes. But we cannot observe causes. For example, the evidence for General Relativity wasn't a picture of space time curving. It was evidence that was better explained by GR, and not other theories. I discard the multiple bubble universe theory, if that's what being referenced here by "multiverse", not because it's not observable or even testable, but because it's a bad explanation. For example, as for being testable, multiple bubbles could spring up in intersecting locations, which could be detected. However, the vast majority of universes that spring up into existence would just be able to support observers, and they would be extinguished immediately after by a sphere of heat. That doesn't describe our universe.
It’s one shining value is that it skirts the need to deal with an uncaused first cause of the universe. One outside of space and time.
I've never understood this sort of complaint. Why can't the multiverse (which universes pop out of) be an uncaused cause? If all of the features of the universe and the biosphere you described need to be "explained reductively", then why does't all of the features of the designer need to be explained reductively?
IOW, the multiverse avoids having to deal with God. In theory.
God as the cause is just one of many logical possibilities. So, why do theists always think the multiverse merely a ploy to avoid dealing God, rather than all of those other logical possibilities? IOW, It seems there is some additional assumption you're bringing to the table that's not explicit.Popperian
September 4, 2014
September
09
Sep
4
04
2014
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PST
The “multiverse” theory posits that our universe is but one of an enormous number of separate and distinct universes.
Why does no one complain that, being unobservable and untestable, the multiverse is not a 'scientific' theory? It's one shining value is that it skirts the need to deal with an uncaused first cause of the universe. One outside of space and time. One powerful enough and intelligent enough to get the job done. Intelligent enough to precision tune it out to the 60th decimal place; Invent the DNA molecule and code it more elegantly than humans have managed. Personal enough to create personal beings. Moral enough to make them aware of a transcendent moral order. Spiritual enough that they constantly suspect there is and seek a reality beyond the physical. IOW, the multiverse avoids having to deal with God. In theory. So why don't we just throw in some party's (PhD's only). Maybe with some, "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" drunken orgies. That might not make it more real or s scientific, but at least it'd help ward off contemplation of the direction that the evidence is pointing. To quote John Denver, "Thank God I'm a country boy". The Wise Builderleodp
September 3, 2014
September
09
Sep
3
03
2014
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PST

Leave a Reply