It’s unusual for a science writer not to be head over heels in the multiverse hogwash but, well, anyway:
The ‘mirrorverse’ is just one more in a long line of so-called multiverse theories. These theories are based on the notion that our Universe is not unique, that there exists a large number of other universes that somehow sit alongside or parallel to our own. For example, in the so-called Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, there are universes containing our parallel selves, identical to us but for their different experiences of quantum physics. These theories are attractive to some few theoretical physicists and philosophers, but there is absolutely no empirical evidence for them. And, as it seems we can’t ever experience these other universes, there will never be any evidence for them. As Broussard explained, these theories are sufficiently slippery to duck any kind of challenge that experimentalists might try to throw at them, and there’s always someone happy to keep the idea alive.
Is this really science? The answer depends on what you think society needs from science.
Jim Baggott, “But is it science?” at Aeon
Perhaps an increasing number of people need a system that accommodates anything they choose to believe, as opposed to a narrow, imperialistic system that insists on observable facts.
Baggott, of course, also feels the need to take the ritual swipe at ID:
And, no matter how much we might want to believe that God designed all life on Earth, we must accept that intelligent design makes no testable predictions of its own. It is simply a conceptual alternative to evolution as the cause of life’s incredible complexity. Intelligent design cannot be falsified, just as nobody can prove the existence or non-existence of a philosopher’s metaphysical God, or a God of religion that ‘moves in mysterious ways’.
Jim Baggott, “But is it science?” at Aeon
In fairness, it’s not as if he could afford to investigate whether non-intelligent causes of specified complexity are even possible. If he did, and admitted how serious the problems are, his criticism of crackpot cosmology would be rejected and lose all force.
Because, you see, he is allowed to criticize crackpot cosmology provided that he holds to no thesis about the nature of nature that would impede its actual advance. He can regret it but he must not undermine it.
Note: Jim Baggot is the author of Quantum Space: Loop Quantum Gravity and the Search for the Structure of Space, Time, and the Universe (2018) and Quantum Reality: The Quest for the Real Meaning of Quantum Mechanics – A Game of Theories (forthcoming, 2020)
See also: The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide
Follow UD News at Twitter!
If you don’t believe something it is nonsense by definition. So it is a hoot when an unbeliever tries to debunk something that people believe.
Too bad Jim Baggott is ignorant about the testable predictions that Creationist Scientists make.
Here’s one:
The making of a living organism from non living chemicals will never be demonstrated.
That is a testable (AKA falsifiable) claim.
To falsify it, all you need to do is make life in a lab.
And the world’s top gurus, including Nobel Prize winners, in a massive international effort, have been testing it for almost 100 years, striving to falsify it.
Their results? A total flop.
But they keep trying.
Who wouldn’t? The NSF gravy keeps coming and coming.
As President Reagan said, “A government program is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth”
ID makes no testable predictions of its own? I’m not impressed with this writer. You have to be willfully ignorant or very hostile to ID to say that ID is not falsifiable and not science. He comes across as arrogant to boot.
To falsify Intelligent Design all one has to do is demonstrate that random with respect to fitness mutations or other genetic variations plus natural selection can produce irreducibly complex biological systems and/or high information content functional complex specified information (FCSI). To falsify ID all one has to do is demonstrate that blind and mindless processes are capable of producing what ID says was intelligently designed
Paraphrasing Michael Behe on the various biologists who have obviously believed that ID is falsifiable:
Some more quotes from Dr. Behe:
Even more from Dr. Behe: