Darwinism Intelligent Design Multiverse Naturalism News

Pop culture promotes multiverse as like “evolution.”

Spread the love

That is the only claim for evolution that has ever mattered to pop culture. Which is, of course, when it gets interesting:

A little background: Over at Not Even Wrong, Columbia mathematician Peter Woit talks about how the evidence-free multiverse is being marketed to the public, here:

After watching the Breakthrough Prize awards tonight, tomorrow night on the Science Channel you can watch a program that actually features physicists rather than Hollywood/Silicon Valley celebrities. There’s an hour long infomercial for the Multiverse, entitled “Which Universe Are We In?”. You get to hear from

Max Tegmark starting and ending the show with a generic promotional spiel about how wonderful the multiverse is. And others, similar.

The audience is informed that the BICEP findings provided support for the multiverse. Actually, that was just Scientific American oping to persuade Nature readers. And as Woit notes,

No mention of tedious things like dust. This multiverse is all new and shiny, slices, dices, provides every reality you could possibly want.

Woit is here referring to actual news like: Planck satellite data says that big BICEP2 cosmic inflation multiverse was just dust and BICEP2: Why it matters if those gravitational waves were just dust.

Be sure to read Rob Sheldon’s comments here on that messy business.

But why don’t we all see? If the multiverse is true by definition (just gotta be true), it doesn’t even matter if the gravitational waves were just dust in this one universe’s reality. Because the multiverse “provides every reality you could possibly want.”

So pop science culture has decided to believe and promote the multiverse. It is now just a question of how to sell it.

Will they try to jam it into tax-funded textbooks?

Now, re Darwinian evolution, Woit also notes a recent item in Quanta, “Multiverse Collisions May Dot the Sky.” (We noted that here):

Peiris acknowledges that this argument has its critics. “It can predict anything, and therefore it’s not valid,” Peiris said of the reasoning typically used to dismiss the notion of a multiverse as a tautology, rather than a true scientific theory. “But I think that’s the wrong way to think about it.” The theory of evolution, Peiris argues, also resembles a tautology in certain respects — “an organism exists because it survived” — yet it holds tremendous explanatory power. It is a simple model that requires little initial input to produce the vast diversity of species we see today.

A multiverse model tied to eternal inflation could have the same kind of explanatory power. In this case, the bubble universes function much like speciation. Those universes that happen to have the right laws of physics will eventually “succeed” — that is, they will become home to conscious observers like ourselves. If our universe is one of many in a much larger multiverse, our existence seems less unlikely.

Woit points out that bubble collision “predictions” are not falsifiable (but then one multiverse cosmologist wants to get rid of falsifiability as a criterion).

He notes that the WMAP-7 data didn’t see anything in the cosmic microwave background, which means that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is that there is no evidence that these colliding universes dot the sky (Occam’s Razor). But one philosopher of science so far also wants to dump Occam’s Razor.

Prediction: Assuming it hasn’t happened already, the ultimate goal will be: the duty to discount evidence that does not support the multiverse

Along these lines, see David Klinghoffer’s assessment of the Quanta article, cited by Woit.

And see also: The multiverse: Where everything turns out to be true, except philosophy and religion

As if the multiverse wasn’t bizarre enough …meet Many Worlds

But who needs reality-based thinking anyway? Not the new cosmologists

Multiverse cosmology: Assuming that evidence still matters, what does it say?

In search of a road to reality

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “Pop culture promotes multiverse as like “evolution.”

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    “Peiris acknowledges that this argument has its critics. “It can predict anything, and therefore it’s not valid,” Peiris said of the reasoning typically used to dismiss the notion of a multiverse as a tautology, rather than a true scientific theory. “But I think that’s the wrong way to think about it.” The theory of evolution, Peiris argues, also resembles a tautology in certain respects — “an organism exists because it survived” — yet it holds tremendous explanatory power. It is a simple model that requires little initial input to produce the vast diversity of species we see today.”

    Actually, confusing the fact that a unproven theory can explain everything with the belief that an unproven theory has ‘tremendous explanatory power’ is to miss the point of the criticism entirely. Any theory, such as the multiverse, or neo-Darwinism, (or tea-leaf reading for that matter), that can explain a finding, or the opposite of a finding, with the claim that the unproven theory predicted both of the opposite results successfully, is, as Pauli would put it, ‘Not Even Wrong’ in terms of the unproven theory being proven a scientific theory.

    here are a few notes along that line:

    But Who Needs Reality-Based Thinking Anyway? Not the New Cosmologists – Denyse O’Leary January 2, 2014
    Excerpt: 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).,,,
    “These multiverse theories all share the same fundamental defect: They can be neither confirmed nor falsified. Hence, they don’t deserve to be called scientific, according to the well-known criterion proposed by the philosopher Karl Popper. Some defenders of multiverses and strings mock skeptics who raise the issue of falsification as “Popperazi” — which is cute but not a counterargument. Multiverse theories aren’t theories — they’re science fictions, theologies, works of the imagination unconstrained by evidence.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....80281.html

    Why I Still Doubt Inflation, in Spite of Gravitational Wave Findings By John Horgan – March 17, 2014
    Excerpt: Indeed, inflation, like string theory, has always suffered from what is sometimes called the “Alice’s Restaurant Problem.” Like the diner eulogized in the iconic Arlo Guthrie song, inflation comes in so many different versions that it can give you “anything you want.” In other words, it cannot be falsified, and so–like psychoanalysis, Marxism and other overly flexible hypotheses (mmm Darwinism?)–it is not really a scientific theory.
    http://blogs.scientificamerica.....-findings/

    In fact the multiverse is falsified precisely because we do not see ‘anything we want’ even though the multiverse predicts ‘anything we want’

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    Multiverse and the Design Argument – William Lane Craig
    Excerpt: Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1 in 10^10(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1 in 10^10(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1 in 10^10(123). (Penrose calls it “utter chicken feed” by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”.
    http://www.reasonablefaith.org.....n-argument

    The Fine Tuning of the Universe – drcraigvideos – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpIiIaC4kRA

    Of related note, the comparison by Peiris of the multiverse to neo-Darwinism is very apt since Neo-Darwinism is also as ‘flexibile’ in its predictions as the multiverse is. And likewise, because of such flexibility in predictions, neo-Darwinism is also a non-falsifiable pseudo-science instead of a proper science:

    Who would have thought that it would be biologists that came up with the first Theory of Everything?
    Biological divergence? Evolution. Biological convergence? Evolution. Gradual variation? Evolution. Sudden variation? Evolution. Stasis? Evolution. Junk DNA? Evolution. No Junk DNA? Evolution. Tree of life? Evolution. No tree of life? Evolution. Common genes? Evolution. Orfan genes? evolution. Cell with little more than a jelly-like protoplasm? Evolution. Cell filled with countless, highly-specified nano-machines directed by a software code? Evolution. More hardy, more procreative organisms? Evolution. Less hardy, less procreative organisms? Evolution.
    – Evolution explains everything. –
    William J Murray

    “Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.”
    ~ Cornelius Hunter

    Does Evolution have a Hard Core ?
    Excerpt: “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific,,,,”
    – Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
    http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosm.....ore_pg.htm

    Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, similar to the multiverse, neo-Darwinism is falsified precisely because we do not see ‘anything we want’ in the fossil record, but instead see clearly defined species that do not blend into one another:

    “Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space.”
    Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)

    ‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’,,,,,
    ‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’3
    Dr Colin Patterson
    http://creation.com/that-quote.....al-fossils

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Podcast: Richard Sternberg – ” On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 3″
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....4_33-08_00
    Richard Sternberg PhD – podcast – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization)
    5:30 minute mark: “Basically the dolphin genome is almost wholly identical to the human genome,, yet no one would argue that bottle-nose dolphins are our sister species”
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....-dna-pt-2/
    here is part 1 of the podcast:
    http://www.discovery.org/multi.....-junk-dna/

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Privileged Species with Dr. Michael Denton, Now Out on DVD – Nov. 17, 2014
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91271.html

  5. 5
    tjguy says:

    Amazing that they still claim the BICEP findings support a Multiverse!

    It’s dishonest, but maybe that will eventually backfire on them. When people learn that the scientists involved were simply too eager to find evidence, and that it was shamelessly promoted even after the results were questioned, the trustworthiness of these guys and their propaganda will fall.

    There is a reason that honesty is commanded by God. Dishonesty leads to a bad reputation and a loss of trust. I guess they think they are different since they are scientists. Perhaps they feel like they can beat the system. God is not mocked. Whatever a man sows, that will he also reap.

    Why aren’t other scientists publicly chiding these guys for this? Who will speak up to save the reputation of science? Is it OK as long as it is pro-evolution? They certainly get upset when creation scientists present their interpretation of the evidence. They feel like they have to save science. Perhaps they should start the clean up in their own backyard.

Leave a Reply