Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Neil DeGrasse Tyson argues for multiverse


In an interview with David Freeman at The Huffington Post. Following up on “Why Neil deGrasse Tyson cannot replace Carl Sagan” (because the point of view Sagan stands for has been superseded), Freeman’s interview is titled “Why Revive ‘Cosmos?’ Neil DeGrasse Tyson Says Just About Everything We Know Has Changed”:

DF: And our conception of the cosmos may also have changed. Do you think we live in a universe–or a multiverse?

NT: We have excellent theoretical and philosophical reasons to think we live in a multiverse.

DF: Why is that?

NT: Quantum physics, which is the physics of the small, behaves in odd ways. Everything that the tenets of quantum physics predict about the universe–we go out and test it and it’s there. General relativity, which was put forth by Einstein, is the theory of the large–gravity and the large-scale structure of the universe. That also works. Yet they don’t work with one another. If you take the universe all the way back to the Big Bang, well, the entire universe was really small. So now you take the shotgun wedding–quantum physics and general relativity. In that shotgun wedding, if you follow through with all the predictions quantum physics gives you, it allows multiple bubbles to form–one of which is our universe. These are sorts of fluctuations in the quantum foam. Quantum physics fluctuates all the time. But now the fluctuations are not just particles coming into and out of existence, which happens all the time. It’s whole universes coming into and out of existence.

DF: And philosophically?

NT: Philosophically, the universe has really never made things in ones. The Earth is special and everything else is different? No, we’ve got seven other planets. The sun? No, the sun is one of those dots in the night sky. The Milky Way? No, it’s one of a hundred billion galaxies. And the universe–maybe it’s countless other universes.

DF: And our multiverse could be just one of many?

NT: Exactly. It might be that the multiverse is not alone.

These don’t strike yer humble news hack as exceptionally good arguments for a multiverse. What do physicist readers make of them?

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG

For the way in which cosmology has now become fantasy, not fact, see The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).

Follow UD News at Twitter!

johnp, here is a pdf of the paper: Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds. Douglas D. Axe* - 2004 Excerpt: The prevalence of low-level function in four such experiments indicates that roughly one in 10^64 signature-consistent sequences forms a working domain. Combined with the estimated prevalence of plausible hydropathic patterns (for any fold) and of relevant folds for particular functions, this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences. http://www.toriah.org/articles/axe-2004.pdf Here he defends his work: Correcting Four Misconceptions about my 2004 Article in JMB — May 4th, 2011 by Douglas Axe http://www.biologicinstitute.org/post/19310918874/correcting-four-misconceptions-about-my-2004-article-in ID Scientist Douglas Axe Responds to His Critics - June 2011 - Audio Podcast http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2011-06-01T15_59_43-07_00 A few more notes that may be of interest: Axe Diagram for finding a functional protein domain out of all sequence space: The y-axis can be seen as representing enzyme activity, and the x-axis represents all possible amino acid sequences. Enzymes sit at the peak of their fitness landscapes (Point A). There are extremely high levels of complex and specified information in proteins--informational sequences which point to intelligent design. http://www.evolutionnews.org/axediagram.jpg Evolution vs. Functional Proteins - Doug Axe - Video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018222 The following reponce from Dr. Axe to a critic got a grin out on me: Dr. Axe challenges a Darwinist to create a single new gene by Darwinian processes: Show Me: A Challenge for Martin Poenie - Douglas Axe August 16, 2013 Excerpt: Poenie want to be free to appeal to evolutionary processes for explaining past events without shouldering any responsibility for demonstrating that these processes actually work in the present. That clearly isn't valid. Unless we want to rewrite the rules of science, we have to assume that what doesn't work didn't work. It isn't valid to think that evolution did create new enzymes if it hasn't been demonstrated that it can create new enzymes. And if Poenie really thinks this has been done, then I'd like to present him with an opportunity to prove it. He says, "Recombination can do all the things that Axe thinks are impossible." Can it really? Please show me, Martin! I'll send you a strain of E. coli that lacks the bioF gene, and you show me how recombination, or any other natural process operating in that strain, can create a new gene that does the job of bioF within a few billion years. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/08/a_challenge_for075611.html Dr. Axe has some more papers on Bio-Complexity that I find useful. Here is one: The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway - Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe - April 2011 Excerpt: We infer from the mutants examined that successful functional conversion would in this case require seven or more nucleotide substitutions. But evolutionary innovations requiring that many changes would be extraordinarily rare, becoming probable only on timescales much longer than the age of life on earth. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2011.1/BIO-C.2011.1 bornagain77
BA77 (and others) thanks, that helps a lot. On an unrelated note, does anyone know where I can get the full paper entitled "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds" by Doug Axe (without paying for it) :-) johnp
sixthbook, thanks for the clarification and the link. Certainly very useful. ,,, As my clumsy attempt from last night shows in trying to clarify contingent from necessary, I think the ontological argument can, somewhat, be extended from philosophy into physics with a certain amount of success. i.e. There seems to be a certain symmetry between the ontological argument and physics that I think someone, better qualified than I, can flesh out. bornagain77
Lifeepsy, I agree with you, but it's not going to be easy because kids these days are being indoctrinated with this stuff. Heck I was a card carrying believer in evolutionist for 41 years until Stephen Meyers signature in the cell caused my initial doubts in evolution. But we need to keep plugging away like you and all the good people on this forum are doing. You are making a difference , heck you all made a difference with me so I'm sure there are others who are curiously lurking around here who just starting to be introduced to this stuff. It's not a rabbit race but a turtle race, and it will be that much more satisfying when that day comes when we finally see that paradigm shift that will eventually happen and science is freed from such dogmatical thinking. wallstreeter43
@JohnP: The ontological argument only works for maximally great being. Other deities like Zeus or thor aren't described as maximally great so the argument doesn't work for them. Same as unicorns as atheists usually try to substitute unicorn for God in that argument to ridicule it, but that logically fails. I think that Platinga formulates the argument better here: http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/02-03/01w/readings/plantinga.html than BA77 did in his post (no offense to BA77 at all of course). sixthbook
johnp, as to the multiverse and this subtle distinction between necessary existence and contingent existence, I think that it is important to reflect on important detail that often gets overlooked. These multiverses, that materialists conjecture to 'explain away' fine tuning, must exist contingently. i.e. These multiverses are dependent on a 'multiverse generator' that must exist 'necessarily'. Paul Davies puts this problem that materialists sweep under the rug like this:
"The multiverse comes with a lot of baggage, such as an overarching space and time to host all those bangs, a universe-generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen. Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping "meta-laws" that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis. The meta-laws themselves remain unexplained - eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given." Paul Davies, physicist, SETI director
And as Dr. Bruce mentions at the 1:30 minute mark of the following video, the fine-tuning of the pre big bang state, such as we what would see in a hypothetical 'multi-verse generator' which existed 'necessarily' in the pre big bang state, would have to be even more finely tuned than the 1 in 10^10^123 initial entropy of the universe is:
The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse - Dr. Bruce Gordon - video http://vimeo.com/34468027
at the 2:40 minute mark of the following video, an animation that 'sort of' visualizes this hypothetical universe generator is shown.
Privileged Planet - Finely Tuned Universe - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guHodt-7Q7A&feature=player_detailpage#t=160
Of course such a scenario also faces the infinite regress argument. But of most important concern, the 'overarching space and time to host all those bangs' must be a transcendent reality that is 'above space and time', since that reality created space and time in the big bang. Yet in such a transcendent reality that is 'above space and time', as Dr. Craig points out, only the 'personal agent' of God has all of the necessary properties to bring this universe into existence from that 'overarching space and time to host all those bangs' i.e. from that overarching: transcendent dimension:
What Properties Must the Cause of the Universe Have? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI
Supplemental notes:
The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html Dr Quantum - Flatland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4 Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference for time, despite ‘time not passing’ for light, is still not completely transcendent of our temporal time framework since light appears to take time to travel from our temporal perspective. Yet, in the quantum entanglement, the ‘time not passing’, i.e. ‘eternal’, framework is not only achieved in our lower temporal framework, but is also ‘instantaneously’ achieved in the ‘eternal’ speed of light framework/dimension. That is to say, the instantaneous travel (if travel is a proper word) of quantum information/entanglement is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks, not just our present temporal framework or the ‘eternal’ speed of light framework. Quantum information ‘travel’ is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us in this temporal framework. Thus ‘quantum information/entanglement’ is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we now have examined (many of which I have not specifically listed here); transcendent, eternal, and ‘infinite’, quantum information is indeed real and it resides in the primary reality (highest dimension) that can possibly exist for reality (as far as we can tell from our present empirical evidence). “An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality” Akiane Kramarik – Child Prodigy – artist
Verse and Music:
Romans 1:20 “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” Steven Curtis Chapman - God is God (Original Version) - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz94NQ5HRyk
Here you go johnp, Zeus's failings in the perfect being argument are gone over here: God and Necessity - pg. 187 http://books.google.com/books?id=rnXdrTimPO0C&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187#v=onepage&q&f=false bornagain77
Of related interest: Jesus and the Story of Osiris and Horus (William Lane Craig) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6AZqOO2FJA bornagain77
johnp as far as I know (without digging it up and just recalling from memory), all those mythical gods you listed were held to be 'contingent beings'. Beginning at the 1:51 minute mark of this following video, the important distinction between what a contingent being is and what a necessary being is is clarified: The Ontological Argument (The Introduction) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68 Also of related interest as to differentiating Theism from ancient mythology: It is very interesting to note that among all the 'holy' books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe. Some later 'holy' books, such as the Mormon text "Pearl of Great Price" and the Qur'an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Hugh Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5) The Uniqueness Of The Bible Among 'holy books' and Evidence of God in Creation (Hugh Ross) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjYSz1OYG8Y The Most Important Verse in the Bible - Prager University - video http://www.prageruniversity.com/Religion-Philosophy/The-Most-Important-Verse-in-the-Bible.html The Uniqueness of Genesis 1:1 - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBXdQCkISo0 “The Bible is frequently dismissed as being anti-scientific because it makes no predictions. Oh no, that is incorrect. It makes a brilliant prediction. For centuries it has been saying there was a beginning. And if scientists had taken that a bit more seriously they might have discovered evidence for a beginning a lot earlier than they did.” John Lennox Quote taken from the 1:58 minute mark of the following video,,, John Lennox – Science Is Impossible Without God – Quotes – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6287271/ bornagain77
BA77, You presented the following argument: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, God exists. What would stop someone from changing the words "maximally great being (God)" to Zeus, Odin, Osiris, or any of a number of other mythological deities? johnp
Besides the fact that there is no evidence for a multiverse, or the fact that a multiverse leads to the epistemological failure of science (i.e. Bolztmann's Brain, Dr. Bruce Gordon), there is the little problem for naturalists of when they increase their probabilistic resources infinitely so as so to be able to say 'any event that can happen will happen',,,,
Infinitely wrong - Dr. Sheldon - November 2010 Excerpt: So you see, they gleefully cry, even [1 / 10^(10^123)] x infinity = 1! Even the most improbable events can be certain if you have an infinite number of tries.,,,Ahh, but does it? I mean, zero divided by zero is not one, nor is 1/infinity x infinity = 1. Why? Well for starters, it assumes that the two infinities have the same cardinality. http://rbsp.info/PROCRUSTES/infinitely-wrong/ But Who Needs Reality-Based Thinking Anyway? Not the New Cosmologists - Denyse O'Leary January 2, 2014 Excerpt: Logic and reason are likewise irrelevant. Consider the multiverse claim that there are "infinite copies of you and your loved ones leading lives, up until this moment, that are absolutely identical to yours." Mathematician George F. R. Ellis notes that, if so, the deep mysteries of nature are too absurd to be explicable and that the proposed nine types of multiverse in one scheme are "mutually exclusive." True, but in a multiverse, "inexplicable" is okay. "Absurd" and "mutually exclusive" are meaningless concepts. It is equally meaningless to assert that one event is more probable than another. As David Berlinski puts it, "Why is Newton's universal law of gravitation true? No need to ask. In another universe, it is not"(Devil's Delusion, p. 124).,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/01/but_who_needs_r080281.html
,,,there is the little problem for naturalists of when they increase their probabilistic resources infinitely so as so to try to be able to say 'any event that can happen will happen' they also make the probability of God's existence 100%! i.e. If it is infinitely possible for God to exist then He, of 100% certainty, must exist no matter how small the probability is of His existence in one of these other infinity of universes, and since He certainly must exist in some possible world then he must exist in all possible worlds since He is transcendent and infinitely Powerful.,, The preceding argument has actually been made into a formal philosophical proof:
Ontological Argument For God From The Many Worlds Hypothesis - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784641 God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4 The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, God exists. Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4
i.e. In their appeal to the multiverse to 'explain away the fine-tuning of this one, the materialists/atheists, without realizing it, end up conceding the necessary premise to the ontological argument and thus guarantees the success of the argument and thus insures the 100% probability of God’s existence! This following video deals with many of the technical objections that atheists/materialists have tried to raise to the ontological argument:
The Ontological Argument (The Introduction) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68
And as weird as it may sound, this following video refines the Ontological argument into a proof that, because of the characteristic of ‘maximally great love’, God must exist in more than one person:
The Ontological Argument for the Triune God - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGVYXog8NUg
i.e. without this distinction we are stuck with the logical contradiction of maximally great love being grounded in ones own self which is the very antithesis of maximally great love. Quote:
"The light is the sum of all love… give love and your reward will be the love you gave and the love you received… If you do not give love then all you will have is the love you were given,,, and that is still wonderful but why not add to the sum of all love,, It is like ruby’s and sapphires in heaven when we give love… Love is the currency of the next life… so give love…" Rudi – Near Death Experiencer
Of related note: Computer scientists have proven Godel's infamous ontological proof for the existence of God:
Computer Scientists 'Prove' God Exists - Oct. 23, 2013 Excerpt: Two scientists have formalized a theorem regarding the existence of God penned by mathematician Kurt Gödel.,,, researchers,, say they have actually proven is a theorem put forward by renowned Austrian mathematician Kurt Gödel,,, Using an ordinary MacBook computer, they have shown that Gödel's proof was correct,,, http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html
What I found weird in the preceding paper is that although most people would certainly think that proving Godel's ontological argument for the existence of God logically true, and consistent, was a pretty big deal, it seems the author(s) of the article were more impressed with the advance in computer programming that it represented than they were impressed with the fact that they proved Godel's proof was actually true. This is how the author of the article put it:
"and the real news isn't about a Supreme Being, but rather what can now be achieved in scientific fields using superior technology."
I think someone may have their priorities a bit confused in that article. Although to be sure knowing that God exists intellectually is still a far cry from knowing God exists personally:
Kirsten Powers’ Reluctant Journey from Atheism to Christian - 2013 Excerpt: Then something very unusual happened to Powers on a trip to Taiwan in 2006. "I woke up in what felt like a strange cross between a dream and reality. Jesus came to me and said, 'Here I am.',,, Powers doesn't recall what Kathy Keller taught on that day, but when she left the Bible study she knew everything had changed. "I'll never forget standing outside that apartment on the Upper East Side and saying to myself, 'It's true. It's completely true.' The world looked entirely different, like a veil had been lifted off it. I had not an iota of doubt. I was filled with indescribable joy.",,, "Everywhere I turned, there He was. Slowly there was less fear and more joy. http://crossmap.christianpost.com/news/fox-news-kirsten-powers-reluctant-journey-from-atheism-to-christian-6355
Verse and Music:
John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends. For King & Country "The Proof Of Your Love" LIVE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr9YVD05x8M
Paul Feyerabend said it best in Against Method:
"[...] the most stupid procedures and the most laughable result in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down to size and to give them a lower position in society."
If anything good comes out of this, it will be that people will start waking up and seeing that these particular “scientists” are anything but epitomes of objectivity that they laughably paint themselves as. I wish that would happen, but as it is with Darwinism, the scientists will keep speculating with "just so" stories and wrapping their tales with mathematical jargon and enchantments. Thus, it will appear in your son or daughter's high school text in the near future, and anyone who doubts the reality of the multiverse will be labeled a "denier", "right winger", "zealot", "fundamentalist" or "anti-science". NEVER underestimate the power that scientists have in creating the doctrine of our official Religion of Reason. OldArmy94
The materialist religion so steeped in superstition and ignorance is now in full bloom. The appeal to science is just hypocritical smoke and mirrors. It has always been about religion, a state religion in disguise. Mapou
wallstreeter43, If anything good comes out of this, it will be that people will start waking up and seeing that these particular "scientists" are anything but epitomes of objectivity that they laughably paint themselves as. That is one cultural myth that needs to die. Lets see how well these materialist philosophers do on a level playing field when they're not able to hide behind that bluff. lifepsy
Yep JDH, and why can't Tyson just be honest about his little emotional agenda and stop pretending that he is being totally neutral from a scientific point of view. I guess he must be bias if his stated goal as he so bluntly put was to make sure that the national Academy of Sciences will one day become 100% atheist. I guess tyson is lucky because he can pretend he doesn't have a religious belief even though he knows deep inside he really does. wallstreeter43
I am a physicist by training, and I have to say that training as a physicist will not help defeat this inane reasoning because there is nothing scientific about it. For example: 1. Rob Sheldon, please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see any reason in QM or GR to suggest that the theorized quantum foam creates bubbles which have different values for the fundamental parameters ( such as alpha, e, h, G). 2. When virtual particles pop in and out of existence in the known universe they most certainly interact with each other. Why should the bubbles that are created be disjoint universes that do not interact? As for his "philosophical reasoning" do you notice, that in describing the universe he couldn't help but use words for design.
Philosophically, the universe has really never made things in ones
(emphasis added) A much better philosophical idea is that things that give all appearance of being designed by an intelligence, probably are. IMHO Tyson left out the real reason he believes in the absurd idea of the multiverse. He desperately, desperately, desperately, does not want God to exist. JDH
This is the same neil tyson that made one of the most philosophically sophomoric arguments in the history of philosophy, the bad design argument, and the only reason it didn't receive more attention in the. Christian and design community was because it was so easy to refute that I could have refuted it. He also asserts there is great evidence for a multiverse but then again he is a science popularizer when he makes statements like this about universes that are hypothetical and that we can't even observe. Even if there are multiverses the borde guth vilinkan theorem which is a very solid theory in mainstream science says that they also must have an ultimate beginning William lane craig stated this http://youtu.be/XcbFFvVeoAk Here Vilinkan states that William lane craig presents his theorem very accurately . http://youtu.be/uZQnRYhy6N0 What I'm also finding interesting is that there is a new group of Christians as well as theists and pantheists who are now arguing that the multiverse if true is even more powerful evidence for God's , this was kind of a pleasant surprise that kind of caught me off guard. This link shows a brief paragraph of their arguments so I haven't looked into them with enough detail. http://www.ryerson.ca/~kraay/multiverse.html I sure wish someone could get the full arguments. It's my first day seeing this so I'll keep looking around. wallstreeter43
Am not a physicist. But reading the comments above (and the loosely thrown together comments in the article)...I suspect that the secondrate argument for multiverse (implied...with no designer allowed) will WORK for the average college student. Many will simply accept the well dressed casual suggestion... in place of a rigorous argument... because many were not taught to test ideas...but just to submit and take in what one's prof/one's text...even one's favorite snide fashionably atheistic/agnostic commentator/blogger says. vikingmom
Peter Woit notices the Wikipedia article on the Multiverse -
...It’s hard to know where to start with a document like this, and I’ve neither the time nor the Wikipedia expertise to start trying to edit it to something sensible (at this point I’d suggest that the most sensible edit would be to remove the whole thing). I include just a couple of random examples of problems with the entry. The “criticism” section has little actual criticism, just some mild comments from Ellis and Davies, together with positive quotes from them about the multiverse as a research program. Nothing from Gross or Steinhardt, for instance. Much of the “criticism” section is actually defense of the multiverse through claims about experimental evidence from Mersini-Houghton that I don’t think anyone except her takes seriously. Other claims of experimental evidence are completely outrageous, for instance we read that “Recent research has indicated the possibility of the gravitational pull of other universes on ours.[22]” where reference [22] is to a Planck collaboration paper which states the exact opposite (“There is no detection of bulk flow”). There’s a good case to be made that I pay too much attention to popular media nonsense about the multiverse. Unfortunately Wikipedia is taken a lot more seriously by the public than magazine stories. At this very moment, hundreds of high school students may be copying material out of it for their assigments…
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6758 udat

Leave a Reply