Cosmology Intelligent Design Multiverse Science

Question for multiverse theorists: To what can science appeal if not evidence?

Spread the love
File:Soapbubbles1b.jpg
soap bubbles/Timothy Pilgrim

They could just as well say that whatever created horses created unicorns too.

The multiverse advocates’ project is not to undermine the evidence base as such. There just isn’t any evidence for a multiverse. Their project is rather to undermine the idea that evidence, as used in normal science, should matter in cosmology. String theory, we are told, is useful even if unconfirmed (Quanta). Supersymmetry is beautiful, lacking only supporting evidence (The Economist). The multiverse is a done deal anyway (ScienceBlogs).

It bears repeating: Advocates do not merely propose that we accept faulty evidence. They want us to abandon evidence as a key criterion for acceptance of their theory. More.

5 Replies to “Question for multiverse theorists: To what can science appeal if not evidence?

  1. 1

    String, supersymmetry, and multiverse theories are explanations for how things MIGHT be. They are philosophical concepts…not science.

  2. 2
    Origenes says:

    P1. Naturalism is true
    P2. Naturalism cannot be true without a multiverse

    Therefore

    C. The multiverse is a done deal.

  3. 3
    asauber says:

    Appealing to comedic science fiction has already been well-established in certain circles. Stupid, but cool.

    Andrew

  4. 4
    ppolish says:

    Agree with you Origenes,

    And many of the “multiversalists” are those scientists who beat their heads against the wall trying to disprove your P2. Can’t say they accepted a multiverse without trying not to believe in it. Tried hard.

  5. 5
    Dionisio says:

    This multiverse topic shows up quite frequently here.
    What’s the hype about it?
    A controversial highly speculative argument for fine-tuning based on combinatorial probability?
    The fine-tuning seems like a requirement for the OOL, which is another area of discussion filled with much pseudoscientific hogwash too.
    However, let’s keep in mind that the fine-tuning per se doesn’t resolve the OOL mystery. Because the OOL has to do with enormous amounts of complex functionally specified information (CFSI).
    Since the ‘L’ in ‘OOL’ hasn’t been scientifically defined yet, maybe it would help to discuss OOCFSI instead? 🙂

Leave a Reply