Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Don’t let the multiverse on the public payroll

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The way Darwinism got on it. Including tax-funded textbooks in compulsory public schools and all the rest.

At Evolution News & Views, Kirk Durston writes,

Science is also advancing our understanding of just how fantastically improbable the origin of life is. Evolutionary biologist, Eugene Koonin, looking at the possibility that life arose through the popular “RNA-world” scenario, calculates that the probability of just RNA replication and translation is 1 chance in 10 with 1,017 zeros after it. Koonin’s solution is to propose an infinite multiverse. With an infinite number of possible universes, the emergence of life will becomes inevitable, no matter how improbable.

So the multiverse has become atheism’s “god of the gaps” but some scientists point out that multiverse “science” is not science at all. Mathematician George Ellis wrote of multiverse models, “they are not observationally or experimentally testable — and never will be.”

Responding to the testability issue, physicist Sean Carroll proposes that we put less scientific emphasis on testable, falsifiable predictions, suggesting that a theory should be evaluated by how well it explains the data. Silk and Ellis point out that multiverse theories, unfortunately, can be adjusted to fit anyobservation. Mark Buchanan, in his review of multiverse enthusiast and physicist Max Tegmark’s book Our Mathematical Universe, writes, “In the end, this isn’t science so much as philosophy using the language of science.”

But that feature is just what will sell the project, unless it is contested.

Darwinism isn’t evolution; it is a theory about how evolution occurs. But it got taken for “evolution” in general and funded as such.

If only all nonsense were free and non-compulsory.

See also: How multiverse theory got started and why it matters so much to some.

And Talk to the fossils: Let’s see what they say back

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Querius, Thanks for the reference at #70.daveS
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PST
Querius: Look up near-instantaneous frame dragging. Your citation: "it is not clear whether this or other similar infinite speed of gravity findings in EGR may only be artifacts." It is quite possible to observe effects that move faster than light speed. For instance, if a rotating object emits light, and that light reflects on a distant surface, then the observed movement of the light across the distant surface can be faster than the speed of light, even though none of the photons are moving at such a rate. Querius: But unlike light, gravity does not propagate within space-time, but rather it is a deformation of space-time itself, thus it travels as fast as the other deformation, the one we call inflation. Make sense? You are conflating the gravitational field with gravity waves. The Earth moves through the gravity well of the Sun. That gravity well is essentially static. If the Sun were to suddenly collapse on itself, then that field would vibrate (like an earthquake) as the field changed configurations. Those vibrations are gravity waves. They are posited to move at the speed of light. There is only indirect evidence of this so far, but so far that evidence is consistent with General Relativity. The technology has now reached the point where it should be possible to directly determine the speed of gravity in the near future, and a number of experiments are ongoing.Zachriel
August 12, 2015
August
08
Aug
12
12
2015
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PST
Ok, here's a reference . . . Trends in Black Hole Research By Paul V. Kreitler (editor), 2006 Look up near-instantaneous frame dragging. -QQuerius
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PST
Querius: – Gravity waves that are so undetectably small with all that dust and all that they’re quite indistinguishable from being non-existent Gravity waves may not move at the speed of light. They may not even exist, but that is what General Relativity predicts, including that they are of very small effect under ordinary circumstances. Technology is just now reaching the point where it should be possible to detect gravity waves, so this question will be answered soon. Your claim, however, seems to be based on a misunderstanding of General Relativity.Zachriel
August 11, 2015
August
08
Aug
11
11
2015
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PST
Querius, The question on the table is whether the speed of gravity is the same as c or not in GR.
That the causes of space-time inflation of necessity different, a point that I didn’t argue, but rather that the effects were the same on space-time
Your use of the term "inflation" was confusing; I didn't know you were talking about metric expansion of space in general before you answered that question.
That space-time is somehow different than the curvature of space-time
Spacetime in GR is modeled by a pseudo-Riemannian manifold. Curvature of spacetime is given by a tensor defined on that manifold. The manifold itself and this tensor are not identical.
That mass-energy can “outrun” the deformation of space-time that accompanies it, the cosmological equivalent of walking on water
That's not quite what I said, but are you familiar with how cosmic inflation is hypothesized to solve the horizon problem? If so, you would understand why I'm skeptical about your statements about the speed of gravity. Likewise for the Big Rip. If you can give a published reference (or even a paper on arxiv.org) which shows that gravity can travel faster than c, or that the speed of gravity is determined somehow by the rate of expansion of space, I'd like to see it.daveS
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PST
Mapou, Adios, pal. Notice that I'm being challenged by the proposition of - the sun instantly vanishing leaving no trace, a physical impossibility - the dimensionality of space-time "tearing," another impossibility (what's in the hole, a spatial discontinuity? Frayed strings?) Oh and does a black hole ever tear space-time? - Gravity waves that are so undetectably small with all that dust and all that they're quite indistinguishable from being non-existent - That the causes of space-time inflation of necessity different, a point that I didn't argue, but rather that the effects were the same on space-time - That space-time is somehow different than the curvature of space-time - That mass-energy can "outrun" the deformation of space-time that accompanies it, the cosmological equivalent of walking on water However, I must admit that I'm impressed by the demonstration of faith! ;-) -QQuerius
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
07:20 PM
7
07
20
PM
PST
Pearls and swines come to mind. Adios.Mapou
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PST
Querius, Further to #61: See the wiki article on the Big Rip.
A universe dominated by phantom energy expands at an ever-increasing rate. However, this implies that the size of the observable universe is continually shrinking; the distance to the edge of the observable universe which is moving away at the speed of light from any point moves ever closer. When the size of the observable universe becomes smaller than any particular structure, no interaction by any of the fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak, or strong) can occur between the most remote parts of the structure.
daveS
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PST
For example, the Earth orbits in the gravity well of the Sun. If the Sun were to suddenly disappear, the manifold would begin to rebound, and the speed of that rebound would (based on General Relativity) move at the speed of light. The Earth would feel the gravitational effects just as the Sun blinked out.Zachriel
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
06:55 AM
6
06
55
AM
PST
Querius: unlike light, gravity does not propagate within space-time, but rather it is a deformation of space-time itself, thus it travels as fast as the other deformation, the one we call inflation. A gravitational field is a {typically static} deformation of the manifold, but gravity waves propagate through the manifold. Gravity waves have not yet been directly detected. Even signals from colliding black holes are too attenuated to be detected.Zachriel
August 10, 2015
August
08
Aug
10
10
2015
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PST
If you said “IS curvature of spacetime”, I would agree.
Pure crackpottery since everyone who understands spacetime knows that it is abstract. Spacetime could not possibly exist since it is an unchanging block universe: nothing can move in it. Hello. I know I'm a nut but are these people nuts too?
"There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. [...] In particular, one does not think of particles as "moving through" space-time, or as "following along" their world-lines. Rather, particles are just "in" space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle." Source: Relativity from A to B by Dr. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago
And:
"At the same time I realized that such myths may be developed, and become testable; that historically speaking all — or very nearly all — scientific theories originate from myths, and that a myth may contain important anticipations of scientific theories. Examples are Empedocles' theory of evolution by trial and error, or Parmenides' myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes Einstein's block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the beginning). I thus felt that if a theory is found to be non-scientific, or "metaphysical" (as we might say), it is not thereby found to be unimportant, or insignificant, or "meaningless," or "nonsensical." But it cannot claim to be backed by empirical evidence in the scientific sense — although it may easily be, in some genetic sense, the "result of observation." Source: Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper. Emphasis added.
Mapou
August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PST
Querius,
daveS, Ok, you don’t get it. I’m saying that there’s no difference to space-time between inflation and “accelerating expansion.” Look at the diagrams.
Well, both refer to the metric expansion of space, but they are believed to be quite distinct in cause [Edit: And more importantly here, magnitude] (inflation being caused by the "inflaton", and the current accelerating expansion being caused by dark energy).
You’re also not grasping that you can’t separate gravity from space-time. I’m saying that gravity IS space-time.
If you said "IS curvature of spacetime", I would agree. Nevertheless, we were discussing whether the speed of gravity is the same as that of the expansion of space, and I believe the answer is no. In fact, during the inflationary period, regions within each others' cosmological horizons are hypothesized to have become causally separated, meaning that in a sense, they actually did "outrun each others' gravity".daveS
August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PST
daveS, Ok, you don't get it. I'm saying that there's no difference to space-time between inflation and "accelerating expansion." Look at the diagrams. You're also not grasping that you can't separate gravity from space-time. I'm saying that gravity IS space-time. -QQuerius
August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PST
Querius,
Yes, that’s right. But unlike light, gravity does not propagate within space-time, but rather it is a deformation of space-time itself, thus it travels as fast as the other deformation, the one we call inflation. Make sense?
Eh? I don't believe so. When you say "inflation", do you mean the cosmic inflation that occurred before 10^-32 seconds after the Big Bang? Or are you referring to the expansion which continues to the present time, and is apparently even accelerating? The speed of gravity is certainly not equal to the "speed" of either of these two phenomena.daveS
August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PST
Zachriel (and daveS),
Stretching of the space-time manifold is not the same as velocity within that manifold. Light has a finite speed, but the manifold can expand faster than the speed of light. Gravity waves travel within the manifold, just as does light.
Yes, that's right. But unlike light, gravity does not propagate within space-time, but rather it is a deformation of space-time itself, thus it travels as fast as the other deformation, the one we call inflation. Make sense? Admittedly, this whole area is controversial. -QQuerius
August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PST
Zachriel:
Stretching of the space-time manifold
Since spacetime is both abstract (non-existent) and motionless (it's a block universe), good luck with that. Talk about chicken feather voodoo physics. Phew!Mapou
August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PST
I didn't refresh the page before Zachriel posted; his answer is more to the point than mine.daveS
August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PST
Querius,
Maybe—we’re all pretty much guessing. But if it’s not true, then a star or galaxy can outrun its gravity.
Er, I'm not sure about that. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never heard of an association between rapid metric expansion of space and stars outrunning their gravity.daveS
August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PST
Querius: But if it’s not true, then a star or galaxy can outrun its gravity. Stretching of the space-time manifold is not the same as velocity within that manifold. Light has a finite speed, but the manifold can expand faster than the speed of light. Gravity waves travel within the manifold, just as does light.Zachriel
August 9, 2015
August
08
Aug
9
09
2015
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PST
Maybe---we're all pretty much guessing. But if it's not true, then a star or galaxy can outrun its gravity. There's quite a bit of controversy about this, much of it hinges on what gravity actually is. -QQuerius
August 8, 2015
August
08
Aug
8
08
2015
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PST
Querius,
daveS, Perhaps in a static universe, but I don’t know how one would test it. Consider this. Gravity is the result of the deformation of space-time. According to the inflationary model, space-time has stretched faster than the speed of light–a deformation that causes the nearly all of the red shift. Thus, gravity also propagates faster than the speed of light. -Q
Have you checked this out with anyone? Because I don't think it works. There is no doubt that the speed of gravity is c in GR. Hartle, from the reference cited on the wikipedia page, calculates the line element for spacetime in which a gravity wave is traveling. The velocity at which the wave travels is clearly that of light in a vacuum. If you disagree, I encourage you to write it up formally and show it to a cosmologist, and see what they think.daveS
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PST
Zachriel:
Mapou: And Newton was right. Unlikely, but it is conceivable. According to General Relativity, gravity waves should travel at the same rate as electromagnetic waves. It’s not easy to test, though, and that will probably have to wait for new technological advancements.
Yeah well, those of us with a little understanding always keep in mind that General Relativity is that magical theory which posits a block universe (spacetime) in which nothing can move. We also know that Newtonian physics is the physics that NASA uses to send probes throughout the solar system. Why? It's because Newtonian physics is extremely accurate once you take the speed of light into consideration. Sure, I've heard the Mercury argument a thousand times. It's nothing that Newtonian physics cannot predict if you care to incorporate clock slowing into the theory. Those of us who are privileged enough to understand these things know that gravity is a non-local phenomenon caused by a violation in the energy conservation principle.Mapou
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PST
daveS, Oh, and regarding the simulation interpretation of QM, it's considered pretty likely. There are some YouTube videos that address this question. Here's one, for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47Nu0Dmul1E The *evidence* is plentiful, but the interpretations of that evidence are highly controversial. -QQuerius
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PST
daveS, Perhaps in a static universe, but I don't know how one would test it. Consider this. Gravity is the result of the deformation of space-time. According to the inflationary model, space-time has stretched faster than the speed of light--a deformation that causes the nearly all of the red shift. Thus, gravity also propagates faster than the speed of light. -QQuerius
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PST
Querius,
Regarding gravity, most scientists accept Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. Gravity is due to the deformation of space-time, which can be at a rate that’s faster than the speed of light. Here’s a good explanation:
It can? I thought gravity has to travel at speed c under GR, as explained here and here, along with some "possible experimental measurements".
Do you agree with many physicists that there’s a strong probability we’re living in some kind of virtual reality simulation? Check this out:
I don't have any evidence pointing either way, but it sounds more like science fiction than anything. I vaguely recall talk of a possible test of this hypothesis, and I would be curious to see the results if it could be done.daveS
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PST
Mapou: And Newton was right. Unlikely, but it is conceivable. According to General Relativity, gravity waves should travel at the same rate as electromagnetic waves. It's not easy to test, though, and that will probably have to wait for new technological advancements.Zachriel
August 7, 2015
August
08
Aug
7
07
2015
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PST
daveS, Regarding gravity, most scientists accept Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Gravity is due to the deformation of space-time, which can be at a rate that's faster than the speed of light. Here's a good explanation: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/multimedia/2013/may/09/what-is-quantum-gravity I think it should be clear that a unified theory, if it's even possible must of necessity include a compatible mathematics. Currently, it isn't and so it won't. The "uneeded" part of my argument is the acknowledgment that we use mathematical models as tools---we don't confuse the tools with the actual phenomena. When needed we can insert a constant, a term, or complete replacement to a formula.
Regarding your question about the mathematics of QM, I do agree that in my limited understanding, it’s radically different from CM, and frankly quite bizarre.
Oh, then according to Richard Feynman, you do understand QM! Do you agree with many physicists that there's a strong probability we're living in some kind of virtual reality simulation? Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47Nu0Dmul1E If there's a simulation, then there's a simulator and a result. -QQuerius
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PST
Zachriel:
Newton thought the force of gravity was transmitted instantaneously.
And Newton was right.Mapou
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PST
nmdaveS
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PST
Querius,
These are all good questions.
Thanks. This discussion is more interesting than I had anticipated.
My argument does not apply to CM precisely because it’s unneeded–there are no, “then a miracle occurs,” phenomena in CM. Of course, direct observation of the effects attributed to Chaos still falsifies causal determinism in many classical scientific fields, including orbital mechanics of more than two bodies as one example.
First, I do acknowledge that CM itself is not deterministic, as shown for example by Norton's Dome. But secondly, I don't see how the nature of the phenomena predicted by QM vs CM, or whether anything is "needed" determines whether your argument applies. For clarity, I will stipulate here that any consistent formal system which expresses QM must also express natural number arithmetic and therefore must be incomplete (in its arithmetic component) by Gödel's theorems, hence QM is nondeterministic. I believe that's your argument; if not, please correct me. In response to my question about whether this argument also shows CM is nondeterministic, I see three possible responses:
1) It actually does show CM is nondeterministic. 2) It doesn't show CM is nondeterministic, and the reason is that (unlike the QM case) some formal systems for CM don't express natural number arithmetic, and hence Gödel's theorem doesn't apply. 3) It doesn't show CM is nondeterministic, and the reason is that despite the formal system being incomplete in its natural number arithmetic component, that doesn't imply CM is nondeterministic (unlike the QM case).
If you can identify others, please let me know. Regarding your question about the mathematics of QM, I do agree that in my limited understanding, it's radically different from CM, and frankly quite bizarre.daveS
August 6, 2015
August
08
Aug
6
06
2015
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PST
1 2 3

Leave a Reply