From Sedeer El-Showk at Nautilus:
From the Muslim perspective, fine-tuning isn’t a problem, but rather an example of the beauty and order of the cosmos. Multiverse proposals seem to willfully undermine this beauty, positing a plethora of universes to account for the observed characteristics of our universe. To Mimouni, the idea is also unscientific. “From an ontological point of view, it’s a catastrophe, because you’re proposing things you can never observe, universes that are causally disconnected from our universe,” he says. “In fact, it’s against the philosophy of science as we understand it because it talks about entities that can never be studied or have their existence proven.” More.
Got it in one. The multiverse is not only “not science.” It can never be science if the term retains its traditional meaning of reasoning from the evidence provided by nature in this universe. Some thinkers are prepared to move beyond such mere “facts”, to dispose, for example, of the evidence for fine-tuning. And, culturally, in the Western world today, they will find many sympathetic ears. Wait till that trickles down into more mundane disciplines in science… Countless propositions will be grandfathered because, according to our beliefs, they “must be” true. And anyone offering contrary evidence is then easy to position as an enemy of science.
In short, any group that stays clear of the multiverse morass stands to inherit science for future generations.
See also: Cosmologist: In an infinite multiverse, physics loses its ability to make predictions. And that’s okay.
Theoretical physicist: Multiverse is about how we define science “The multiverse is less like a closed door and more like a key. To me, the word is now tinged with promise and fraught with possibility. It seems no more wasteful than a bower full of roses.”
Follow UD News at Twitter!