Fine tuning Multiverse

Peter Woit on what’s wrong with Jerry Coyne’s argument for a multiverse

Spread the love
File:Soapbubbles1b.jpg
soap bubbles/Timothy Pilgrim

Facebook and YouTube, he says.

Columbia mathematician and string theory skeptic Peter Woit at
Not Even Wrong:

The Youtube video he found makes the standard tenuous argument that the CMB provides evidence for inflation, inflation should be eternal, thus there should be a multiverse. As I explained in detail here, the models of inflation one supposedly has “evidence” for are not models that lead to the kind of multiverse of different physical laws that Coyne needs for his argument with religion.

I should make it clear that I’m on Coyne’s side in the argument of evolution vs. religion, but scientists arguing on the basis of science should take care that they’re using good science if they don’t want to discredit themselves. And, as a general rule for anyone who cares about what’s true and what isn’t, looking for things on Facebook or Youtube that help your side of an argument is now an extremely bad idea. More.

But that begs the question of why Coyne is going to social media for arguments. Are there any good arguments for a multiverse that beat social media’s Gotta Be True!? Does Woit not realize that it amounts to an evidence-lite/evidence-free approach to science?

See also: Post-modern physics: String theory gets over the need for evidence

The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

and

Question for multiverse theorists: To what can science appeal, if not evidence?

10 Replies to “Peter Woit on what’s wrong with Jerry Coyne’s argument for a multiverse

  1. 1
    J-Mac says:

    There is only one piece of evidence for it…that’s what is wrong with Coyne’s argument…

  2. 2
    Dionisio says:

    “as a general rule for anyone who cares about what’s true and what isn’t, looking for things on Facebook or Youtube that help your side of an argument is now an extremely bad idea.”

    Shouldn’t Wikipedia be included in that list too?

  3. 3
    chris haynes says:

    We should be more open-minded about Dr Coyne’s efforts.

    Like our other Atheist friends, he doesn’t have a non-Creationist but still rational explanation for the fine tuning of the universe. So he merely does what so many other Top Scientists have done. He hangs his hat on the irrational Multiverse.

    This is because, as MIT’s Multiverse guru Dr Alan Guth has pointed out, in the infinite multiverse anything that can happen will happen, infinitely many times. So if the infinite multiverse exists, an infinite number of universes will be fine tuned without needing God to Fine Tune it.

    And, although Drs Coyne and Guth forgot to mention it, if the infinite multiverse exists, Sarah Palin has won the Nobel Prize in Physics an infinite number of times.

  4. 4
    chris haynes says:

    We should be more supportive of Dr Coyne’s insights.

    They are Well-Established Science. Like our other Atheist friends, Dr Coyne doesn’t have a non-Creationist but still rational explanation for the fine tuning of the universe. So he merely follows many other Top Scientists. He hangs his hat on what is irrational. In this case, the nonsensical Infinite Multiverse.

    This is because, as MIT’s Multiverse guru Dr Alan Guth has correctly pointed out, “in the infinite multiverse anything that can happen will happen, infinitely many times”.

    So Dr Coyne’s point is correct. If the infinite multiverse exists, basic probability assures us that an infinite number of universes will be fine tuned without any need for God to Fine Tune them.

    And there is a very wide body of Peer Reviewed Evidence that a universe exists. At least one universe, take it to the bank. Unhappily, evidence is lacking for a second universe, not to mention all those other universes. But happily, all that’s needed, surprise surprise, is more funding.

    And although Drs Coyne and Guth forgot to mention it, if their infinite multiverse does exist, basic probability assures us that President Trump has won the Nobel Prize in both Physics and Literature, an infinite number of times.

    So on a cold, gray, and dreary day, we should all thank Drs Coyne and Guth for a nice laugh.

  5. 5
    Dionisio says:

    chris haynes,

    Very refreshing comments. Thanks.

    BTW, in such hypothetical case the referred doctors would be serious rational academic professors infinite times.

    Too bad we happen to be in one of the infinite instances of the multiverse where those doctors and their comrades say so much nonsense.

  6. 6
    Dionisio says:

    The hypothetical multiverse may help to somehow explain the fine-tuning issue, but it doesn’t help with figuring out the OOL or with validating the pseudoscientific hogwash used as argument for the neo-Darwinian just so fairytale.

    From biological perspective it doesn’t make a difference.

  7. 7
    Belfast says:

    “In the infinite multiverse anything that can happen will happen, infinitely many times.”

    Including a God? No?

  8. 8
    Dionisio says:

    Belfast @7:

    No, those folks don’t want God mentioned anywhere in their fiction drama.

    But if there were a multiverse, it would have been created by God too. Therefore God wouldn’t be something that can happen in some universes of the multiverse, because God would have created the whole show.

    But don’t try to persuade them to believe that. It would be much easier to persuade a tiger to become vegetarian.

  9. 9

    We must remember that Dr. Coyne gave up a position as a pseudo-scientist to become a professional Atheist.

  10. 10
    ppolish says:

    Exactly Dionisio, the multiverse accounts for impossibly fine tuned physical constants etc – but does not explain squat about impossibly fine tuned molecular machinery.

    You need more than a multiverse to explain a blind watchmaker with extraordinary eyesight.

Leave a Reply