Many worlds: Maybe easier to make pay than make sense?

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 22, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Bill Dembski wanted to know, re the multiverse (many worlds) theory: here:

Do many worlds present a business opportunity? Would it be possible, for a modest fee, for people to have worlds named after them? Are worlds, like genes, patentable?

A physicist friend figures that it’s better – or worse – than that. It might work for business but it would whack science cold because

Discovering the laws of our universe matters no more than noting the random tosses of dice. It certainly does not bring us closer to the heart of things. Think of any logically possible theory, and it probably holds true somewhere. Technology still makes sense in a multiverse, of course, but science as a pursuit of truth certainly loses some of its shine.

By the way, hat tip to Paul Glenn, commenter of the week, for noting in a comment to this post that there is no controversy over Darwinian evolution in North America in the same sense as there are no homosexuals in Iran.

Just up at Colliding Universes

All things are possible through the scientist who postulates very large numbers? Especially unimaginable things, I am sure.

Settled science chronicles: Reader disses “best science” boilerplate

Life could be just plain rare but not unique in the universe

Catholic Cardinal: Multiverse theory an “abdication of human intelligence”?

Just up at Overwhelming Evidence: Mostly about textbooks

More textbook chronicles: To Goodwill, to Goodwill, to buy us a materialist text cheaply

Textbooks: Unfortunately, Richard Feynman was NOT joking about textbooks!

Textbooks: Yet another journalist skeptical of Darwin lobby. I am rapidly developing a guest list for a Hacks’ Pub Nite!

Comments

Most people here seem to be forgetting that MWI wasn't invented to circumvent I.D.; it was hypothesized to account for facts discovered about subatomic phenomena. Unless there is some I.D. argument about the outcomes of photon-slit experiments and other quantum phenomena that led to the development of MWI, arguing that it is just being brought in to avoid design is irrelevant. The theory of I.D. is that some phenonema are better explained by I.D.; not that the phenomena "actually is" designed by I.D. Whether or not MWI is utilized to provide reasonable depth for something happening "naturally", that doesn't mean I.D. isn't the better explanation. If I.D.is the better explantory model, then it will be able to make better predictions and it will be more useful than other models. The MWI backdrop is meaningless when it comes to which model is more useful in any particular case. Other than ideology, I don't really see why I.D.ers have such an issue with MWI. MWI doesn't invalidate any effective model just because there's enough universes around (so to speak) for anything to happen. You still have to have effective, descriptive models that describe what goes on in this universe, and I.D. is obviously a better model at least in some cases.William J. Murray_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Bennith Karlow (53): "Nobody is proposing MWI simply out of fun to make things more complex. They are proposed because data points to them, or something even stranger we don’t yet grasp. If it’s so simple to dismiss them via Mr Occam and his razor why do they stil persist? Maybe MWI persists because many people prefer a model composed of all known-type elements, even if it depends on positing the existence of unobservable, parallel spacetime continuums continually branching from, and then continuing to exist in parallel with, ours. The alternative is one universe, with everything that's needed for consistency somehow computed "under the hood." Imagine someone who had ridden a horse his entire life finding an automobile unbelievable, and guessing that there must be horses hidden in there somewhere. A monstrously vast number of (unseen) spacetime continuums vs. One "under the hood" mechanism. Occam says the latter is to be preferred. And, again, the promotion of the multiverse hypothesis is suspiciously correlated to the recognition of the exquisite fine-tuning in the universe. __________ P.S. (52): ~~Herbert~~ Hermann Minkowskij_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
10:58 AM
10
10
58
AM
PDT}

if "human I.D." or "one universe" no longer satisfy their obligation to best describe whate we observe, then we change our terminology.
No, what we do not do is play defintion games (that is something comitted naturalists do becuse they can't overcome the problems with their nonsense). What we could do is add new termonology (like what Behe did when he came up with the termonology Irreducable complexity) but, for the sake of consistency and being able to express existing ideas, you do not change existing termonology. That's a sign of bad science. 4. Modify definitions used in the theory. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwinism-predicts-x-oh-you-tell-me-the-opposite-of-x-happened-well-darwinism-predicted-that-too/Bettawrekonize_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT}

Bennith Karlow
Please do so.
This computer is designed and I can build another computer to show that we can design computers.Bettawrekonize_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

When we see an object with characteristics only seen in designed objects and the origins of the object are known, those characteristics of the object are always a product of design acting in/on this universe. This action is something we can observe. We can never observe the properties of multiple universes where this universe just happens to be a universe where that object comes to exist (and compare it to the properties of one independent universe).
If more than one source of I.D. is a better explanation for what we observe than just one source, why not use that view?
Well, more than one human can design a car but we never claim that the car exists as a product of multiple universes (and not design). Basically, your view is that our universe exists as a product of necessity (not design or chance). There are multiple universes, each universe covering a combination of every possible orientation and behavior, so by necessity, a universe like ours must exist. I have already outlined the problems with the multiverse though and how it differs from the design inference. Again, the only problem here is the naturalistic monopoly on thought (in public schools). ID is a better explanation than the multiverse (for reasons I already gave) and if students were equally exposed to non - strawman versions of both (pros and cons), they would probably buy ID over the multiverse. However, naturalists get to choose what is taught in public schools which makes it easier for them to convince students that their views provide better explanations when they don't. BTW, this multiverse hypothesis is similar to that of natural selection. Darwin predicted that if there are multiple organisims to choose from, one of them is bound to provide the right combination of atoms to produce what we are and nature would select it. However, we never observe nature producing what it is proposed to produce. So now they are saying, "well, if we naturally select the right universe, we can produce a universe just like this one." Such is a product of speculation.Bettawrekonize_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

In the case of design, we know what design looks like and we can provide experimental data showing this.
Please do so. In addition, do you think there is any chance of implementing this experimental data via a computer program that would allow semi-automated design detection?Bennith Karlow_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT}

William J. Murray
The two are directaly analogous; we know how one thing behaves; we speculate that there may be more than just that one thing affecting what we are observing and make the best models we can describing what we would likely see if there is more than that one known thing.
The two are not directly analogous. We know how this universe behaves but we have no experimental basis of comparing a single independent universe with one universe within multiple universes. We have such basis of comparing designed objects with undesigned objects and determining which characteristics are only seen in designed object. There is a difference.
Is there only human I.D.? Are there other forms of I.D. affecting phenomena humans interact with?
If we see a car, do we assume it's a product of multiple universes? Or do we assume it's a product of a designer (or designers) acting in/on this universe?
It’s directly related to the MWI issue; do we really know that there is just one universe? We assume our concept of living in a single universe is axiomatically correct; what if that’s not the case? What if more than just “one universe” is in operation in our daily lives?
Then the burden of proof is on you to provide experimental data showing the difference in behavior between one independent universe or one universe within multiple universes and then to show that our universe behaves like one universe within multiple universes. If you can't then your claims are just unfalsifiable speculation. In the case of design, we know what design looks like and we can provide experimental data showing this.Bettawrekonize_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

I say let the scientists play with their models all they want, you never know what will come of it. I agree with that. Of course I'm including ID. Does ID propose a better non-thelogical solution to the problems solved by the many universe theory? ID is non-theological. It basically says here is what we know about design and when we apply it to life it shows life to be designed. It's not so much a solution but an observation of reality and in no way does it invoke God. Unlike multiverse which basically is an attempt to explain why traditional materialist models fail without having to consider the possibility of the existence of God. Of course, when taken to it logical end, this backfires on the atheist. Christians always believed there are places where our natural laws don't apply.tribune7_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

What is often forgotten about MWI is that it's a tool that solves a particular class of problems. Some solutions are more elegant then others. However I fail to see how that is a problem as is that not also a "big tent" approach as is offered here? They might never decide on what is the "correct" interpretation, just like many issues on this side of the fence may never be decided. So, simply, follow the evidence where it leads and you won't go far wrong.
For my part, I think that Occam’s razor makes short work of both MWI and the multiverse hypothesis.
Ah, but then it falls to you to find new tools to explain the data. Nobody is proposing MWI simply out of fun to make things more complex. They are proposed because data points to them, or something even stranger we don't yet grasp. If it's so simple to dismiss them via Mr Occam and his razor why do they stil persist? How about string theory? Should that also be razored away? Seems to me some people here would glady dismiss basic research that may never have a pratical benefit on the basis it's speculative. I say let the scientists play with their models all they want, you never know what will come of it. Does ID propose a better non-thelogical solution to the problems solved by the many universe theory?Bennith Karlow_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

There seems to be a lot of confusion and conflation of MWI and the multiverse here, including in Denyse's post. Please note that Dr. Dembski's conflation was apparently done for the sake of humor. For general edification: The two concepts are distinct. In MWI (the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics), there is still essentially one universe -- It has one set of laws of nature. It's just that it is held to be continually branching, such that all different kinds of histories ("worlds") are occurring, in parallel, but we experience only one of them. The term 'world' was apparently first used by Herbert Minkowski to describe what is now typically called the spacetime continuum of Einstein's theory of relativity. In the multiverse hypthesis, there are multiple, separate universes, each with its own laws of nature, and only an infinitesimally small proportion of them support life of any kind -- and we live in one of them. For my part, I think that Occam's razor makes short work of both MWI and the multiverse hypothesis. __________ William J. Murray (5): "It would be an error to see MWI as a response to the I.D. challenge." ...but it wouldn't be an error to see the multiverse "hypothesis" as a response to the challenge posed by ID. MWI has been talked about for decades as a consistent, but strange, alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation -- and a perhaps desperate attempt to salvage determinism. However, the multiverse hypothesis seems to have been taken seriously, and widely advocated, only in direct proportion with the recognition of how finely-tuned the universe is.j_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

Tribure said: It’s self evident. Demonstrate this multiverse. My response: I have, many times, to the satisfaction of several people. Arguing about it in this forum isn't "emipirically proving" it, as you pointed out. Demonstrating it, or having others demonstrate it to themselves in a convincing manner, is the very definition of "empirically proving" it. Bettawreconize said: The difference here is that we know what design looks like because we ourselves can design. We don’t know how this universe should behave or look like if there are multiple universes since we can never experimentally observe the difference in behavior between one independent universe and one universe within multiple universes. One can only speculate how this universe should behave or look like if it is within many universes. How do we know all of the observable phenomena in this universe aren’t simply a function of this universe? My response: The two are directaly analogous; we know how one thing behaves; we speculate that there may be more than just that one thing affecting what we are observing and make the best models we can describing what we would likely see if there is more than that one known thing. Is there only human I.D.? Are there other forms of I.D. affecting phenomena humans interact with? Does that other I.D. act enough like human I.D. for a comparison to be meaningful? Will we ever know for certain if there is actually another form of I.D. in operation? It's directly related to the MWI issue; do we really know that there is just one universe? We assume our concept of living in a single universe is axiomatically correct; what if that's not the case? What if more than just "one universe" is in operation in our daily lives? If more than one source of I.D. is a better explanation for what we observe than just one source, why not use that view? If more than one universe is a better explanation for what we observe than just one universe, why not use that view? Those are just terms we utilize to describe something; if "human I.D." or "one universe" no longer satisfy their obligation to best describe whate we observe, then we change our terminology. Do we really know what "human" I.D. is, or is human I.D. just the product of another I.D.? Do we really know what it is to live in "one universe", or is the experience we are having actually the product of living in a multiverse? At the end of the day, you go with what is a better, more descriptive model utilizing the best terms you can; aspects of the universe behave as if there are other sources of I.D. than humans; aspects of the universe behave as if there is a multiverse affecting it. Can we ever directly observe the other putative "designer"? I don't know. Some people claim to have done so. Can we ever directly observe the other putative "universes"? I don't know. Some people claim to have done so. It would be presumptuous to claim we cannot, though.William J. Murray_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PDT}

If such predictive theories are not useful, then MWI becomes a fun bit of sophistry and nothing more; if such predictive theories are useful, as in quantum computing and other applications, then MWI is much like “a Designer” in I.D.; you might never be able to prove there are in fact other universes, but you can certainly prove that phenomena in this universe behaves as if there are.
The difference here is that we know what design looks like because we ourselves can design. We don’t know how this universe should behave or look like if there are multiple universes since we can never experimentally observe the difference in behavior between one independent universe and one universe within multiple universes. One can only speculate how this universe should behave or look like if it is within many universes. How do we know all of the observable phenomena in this universe aren’t simply a function of this universe?Bettawrekonize_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
11:02 PM
11
11
02
PM
PDT}

If such predictive theories are not useful, then MWI becomes a fun bit of sophistry and nothing more; if such predictive theories are useful, as in quantum computing and other applications, then MWI is much like “a Designer” in I.D.; you might never be able to prove there are in fact other universes, but you can certainly prove that phenomena in this universe behaves as if there are. The difference here is that we know what design looks like because we ourselves can design. We don’t know how this universe should behave or look like if there are multiple universes since we can never experimentally observe the difference in behavior between one independent universe and one universe within multiple universes. One can only speculate how this universe should behave or look like if it is within many universes. How do we know all of the observable phenomena in this universe aren’t simply a function of this universe?Bettawrekonize_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT}

I guess the real problem is that naturalists get to have a monopoly on what is taught (in publicly funded schools)...Bettawrekonize_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT}

It’s self evident. Demonstrate this multiverse.
I guess the real problem is that naturalists get to have a monopoly on what is taught while they get to censor criticisms and opposing views of anything that may contradict naturalism. This makes it much easier for them to get their views accepted without having to demonstrate what they claim. Then some naturalists (and I'm not pointing to anyone specific) go on message boards and blogs and clutter them with bad logic in order to overwhelm good logic against their nonsense in hopes that no one would notice the good logic (because of extreme volume) and in order to prevent us from discussing and developing/maturing/improving our viewpoints. After all, if they made an attempt to argue against us and improve their own logic (instead of repeating the same old bad logic over and over), that would only help us improve our arguments (and people reading our refutations of their better arguments can learn how to refute those better arguments and get a better understanding of our arguments) and if we are allowed to peer review each others views with good logic, then we can improve our understanding of the universe as well. They want to interrupt that process and they interrupt it by cluttering us with bad logic over and over and over, and never conceding to the fact that they are resorting to bad logic. I wish there was a (privately funded) forum like this for YEC's where continuously repeated bad logic gets banned (and YEC moderators decide who gets banned). That way it's a forum for people who believe in YEC to peer review each others views (and get their views peer reviewed by people who oppose YEC who aren't simply interested in trolling and who would actually concede if they are wrong instead of constantly repeating bad logic, as if that would make them correct) and actually try and improve them (instead of having to constantly battle repeated bad logic). Well, it could be publicly funded as long as they have publicly funded forums like this for OETs (opposing views) where the moderators are OETs. I also wish there was a message board for YEC's and ID proponents (that's not a blog) like this (where bad logic, determined by ID and YEC proponents, gets banned). Blogs seem to have too many limitations (but they have their advantages and their limitations also give them some advantages to some).Bettawrekonize_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT}

I still have a VERY tough time at seeing how "design" is a logical alternative to describing the world working through cause and effect processess. It's like we see this existence and all of its workings (which at one time seemed chaotic and magical to us humans) and we as humans parsed it down into definitions, statistics, categories, laws, analogies, explanations, and theories that are structured in a way that can be comprehended by other humans. Maybe we think it was "designed" because of the very nature of how we think? We've designed our own structured descriptions of our universe, and the natural by-product of that is a view of a universe that contains design.Fross_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

It’s statements like this that are really fun to examine. What do you mean I can’t “empirically prove” it? It's self evident. Demonstrate this multiverse.tribune7_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

Quote: Your right. I don’t. And you can’t empirically prove what you experienced. All you can do is witness to it. End Quote It's statements like this that are really fun to examine. What do you mean I can't "empirically prove" it? I have "empirically proven" the existence of the multiverse to many people, through rational evaluations of experiential, experimental evidence based on predictions generated by certain premises and extrapolations of the postulated MWI format and relationship. Have I scientifically proven it? Again, it depends on what you mean by "scientifically proven". Proven to whom? A consensus of mainstream scientists? Scientific and empirical are not synonymous; "proven" doesn't mean "true for everyone", and if MWI is meaningfully descriptive of what we are actually experiencing, do you really think I can successfully prove it to someone that selects sequences where it cannot be proven? MWI as a hypothesis requires that one very closely examine their premises; you are making comments about a hypothetical MWI existence based upon terms and axioms rooted in the idea of a single, objective physical universe.William J. Murray_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

William & jj. Just because something isn't science, doesn't mean it isn't true.tribune7_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT}

You don’t know what I’ve experienced. Your right. I don't. And you can't empirically prove what you experienced. All you can do is witness to it.tribune7_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT}

That is, we can never experimentally observe the difference in behavior between one independent universe and one universe within multiple universes.Bettawrekonize_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT}

If such predictive theories are not useful, then MWI becomes a fun bit of sophistry and nothing more; if such predictive theories are useful, as in quantum computing and other applications, then MWI is much like “a Designer” in I.D.; you might never be able to prove there are in fact other universes, but you can certainly prove that phenomena in this universe behaves as if there are.
The difference here is that we know what design looks like because we ourselves can design. We don't know how this universe should behave if there are multiple universes since we can never experimentally observe the difference in behavior between the existence of one universe and multiple universes. One can only speculate how this universe should behave if there are multiple universes. How do we know all of the phenomena in this universe aren't simply a function of this universe?Bettawrekonize_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
06:05 PM
6
06
05
PM
PDT}

#32 & #35: It brings to question how one knows things; does one know things only because scientific evidence based on scientific premise indicates something to be true? Is everything else by default faith? I don't subscribe to those definitions of faith and knowledge. I know my wife loves me, in any practical sense of the word. If I say "I know there is a multiverse," then before you say "no, you do not" it might behoove you to at least question me on how I arrived at that conclusion before you assert it is the product of faith. You don't know what I've experienced. It's like claiming that anyone who believes there is a god believes it on faith; you don't know what they've experienced.William J. Murray_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

William J. Murray: “My wife loves me” is also a statement of faith; tribune7: ...you are not claiming that is science are you?
In a Russellian sense, it would have to be. For the devotees of Scientism, it has to be reducible to scientific statements, or otherwise it's a conceit--perhaps harmless, but nothing actually to it. If you don't doubt him, and you approach it from this perspective, then there has to be a group of scientific facts at the base of it--which, he does not know directly.jjcassidy_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

I agree with your pessimism on truth, Bill, It just has to be possible to have a misleading world: One that gives an illusion to even it's best observer species that it is part of a multi-verse, while actually presenting the wrong multi-verse. BTW, well done, Bettawrekonize!jjcassidy_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT}

The question of the "MultiVerse" is an enigma to me. If anything can be observed in finite time it , like any empirically observable phenomenon falls within the category of universe. Having read Berlinski's "THE DEVIL'S DELUSION," this groping at straws by string theorists, et al, is a rather desperate attempt to explain metaphysics in physical categories. It is yet another tired effort at explaining away the "irrationality" found in religion. It is an interesting theory and one quite possible, given the biblical accounts found in the Pauline epistles. But the agenda at hand is decidedly materialist, and rather hopeless in my view.toc_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

For those that select (so to speak) an existence under God, life after death, paranormal activity, the miraculous, etc. … the quantum structure can as easily support that. I agree with that. “My wife loves me” is also a statement of faith; I have equal confidence that both statements are meaningfully valid. I don't dispute you there either but you are not claiming that is science are you?tribune7_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT}

#18: [quote] If you are saying they exist you are making a statement of faith. [end quote] "My wife loves me" is also a statement of faith; I have equal confidence that both statements are meaningfully valid.William J. Murray_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

Quote: I think those, however, who are pushing it as a way of cutting the odds of a universe fine-tuned for life happening without design have not considered the metaphysical ramifications. [end quote] I think also that many of those that fight against it have similarly not really considered the metaphysical ramifications. Many here argue that MWI is the last-gasp of materialism, so they fight the idea, but they don't really fully consider the ramifications of MWI. Materialism becomes essentially meaningless under MWI, because macro physical actualities only represent lattice-works of quantum structure selected by observers; materialism would just be one selected continuity out of many potential scenarios. For those that select (so to speak) an existence under God, life after death, paranormal activity, the miraculous, etc. ... the quantum structure can as easily support that. I think the real issue a lot of I.D.ers would have with the ramifications of MWI is while God would actually exist for those that "selected" such an existence, God wouldn't exist for those that didn't select it. Under MWI, you wouldn't have to compete with others for "the one true reality".William J. Murray_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

Dick #23 [quote]If there are a near infinite number of universes (or domians)then every logical possibility will be actualized in at least one.[\quote] I don't think this follows. If you have infinitely many universes and only finitely many logical possibilities, you can say that some logical possibility is actualized infinitely often, but not that every logical possibility is actualized. (If there are infinitely many logical possibilities, all bets are off!) As an analogy, if you know you have infinitely many slips of paper and on each one is written a number between 1 and 10, you can say that at least one of the numbers appears infinitely often, but you can't say that every number appears; you could have all 5's, in which case 7 (for instance) never shows up at all.holomorph_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply