Cosmology Intelligent Design

Science: Moving into a space where reality no longer matters?

Spread the love

Evolution News and Views

Science-Fictions-square.gif Further to “Will this be the year we make contact with reality about space aliens?”: Our culture’s fascination with aliens resembles  the public fascination with King Arthur’s Round Table during the Middle Ages.

That is, the stories are believed by many to be true, yet the entire edifice is built on assumptions without evidence. Medieval Europeans similarly believed in a glorious period between the fall of Rome and the rise of Western Europe. So they invented one.

History suggests that the intervening period actually featured disorder, disintegration, and barbarism. But history—past or future—has never proven much of a deterrent to the human imagination.

It gets a little dicey, however, when we decide reality no longer matters. That is what cosmology is doing today, as I note in my latest in the Science Fictions series, “But Who Needs Reality-Based Thinking Anyway? Not the New Cosmologists.”

Here are some just two of the ideas we must accept, if we adopt the fully naturalist (nature—whatever it is—is all there is) view they propose:

Evidence is irrelevant. Too many critics dismiss the multiverse because it lacks evidence. In other words, they assume — without warrant in this case — that that matters. But the Copernican Principle was developed precisely to work around the evidence (of the Big Bang and fine tuning of our own universe). Evidence is not going to suddenly start to matter again.

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). More.

As physicist Rob Sheldon puts it, “Now some will say that this is still a small price to pay for the freedom it provides from a creator-god. But I want to make it very clear what the terms of the exchange will be.”

The triumph of the fully naturalist cosmos is not the abolition of God but of reality (more).

See also: Science Fictions

Follow UD News at Twitter!

8 Replies to “Science: Moving into a space where reality no longer matters?

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    this zinger is a beaut:

    “Multiverse theory is designed for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to defend atheism. It makes no predictions, it gives no insight, it provides no control, it produces no technology, it advances no mathematics, it is a science in name only, because it is really metaphysics.”
    Dr. Robert B. Sheldon

  2. 2
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    You meet the craziest people, in the Multiverse

  3. 3
    CentralScrutinizer says:

    “Hawking is comfortable with non-realism: “I’m a positivist. … I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is.”

    It may be a hyper intelligent consciousness.

    Won’t Hawkings be surprised.

  4. 4
    Jaceli123 says:

    I have a question about the multiverse subject. In may of 2013 the PLANK CMB scanner scanned the CMB and found a anomaly in the bottom right corner. What does that show for the multiverse and the bigbang?

  5. 5
    Jorge says:

    “The triumph of the fully naturalist cosmos is not the abolition of God but of reality.”

    When God is abolished, reality goes with it …
    when reality is abolished, God goes with it.

  6. 6
    OldArmy94 says:

    I see things like this, and I really begin to wonder if the Second Coming of Christ is near. The absurd, blatant, and comical denials of everything are signs of the anti-theist’s desperate need to hide from God.

  7. 7
    Axel says:

    I think you have a very good point. Also, they’re so dim that, while they realise QM and astrophysics is increasingly revealing the paradoxical and the supernatural, both distant and very, very close at hand, Bohr’s stricture, below, gos over their head :

    Our task is to communicate experience and ideas to others. We must strive continually to extend the scope of our description, but in such a way that our messages do not thereby lose their objective or unambiguous character …

    They can’t hold the two concepts in their head at the same time, hence their dismissive attitude towards the ‘magic’ of QM; except where their livelihood is entailed, when they are as adept as authentic, metaphysically competent scientists are at using the paradoxes, as staging posts for launching upon further forays.

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related note, despite the patent absurdity of it, I had a bit of a hard time refuting the MWI (Many World’s Interpretation) a while back when an atheist said that ‘Shor’s algorithm’ confirmed it. Well along that line of inquiry, I stumbled across this excellent site:

    Is Shor’s algorithm a demonstration of the many worlds interpretation?
    Excerpt: David Deutsch is very fond of pointing out Shor’s integer factorization algorithm is a demonstration of the many worlds interpretation. As he often asked, where else did all the exponentially many combinations happen?

    Are there any other alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics which can explain Shor’s algorithm, and the Deutsch-Jozsa and Simon’s algorithm?

    ,,,this argument is totally wrong for a simple reason: the real Universe – our Universe – is a quantum system, not a classical system. So it is normal for quantum systems in a single Universe to behave just like the quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm. On the contrary, if we only use the classical computers, we exponentially slow down the computer relatively to what it could do. In this sense, Deutsch’s “argument” shows that the many-worlds interpretation is just another psychological aid for the people who can’t resist to incorrectly think about our world as being a classical world of a sort.

    There is one more lethal conceptual problem with the “many worlds” explanation of the Shor’s algorithm’s speed: the whole quantum computer’s calculation has to proceed in a completely coherent way and you’re not allowed to imagine that the world splits into “many worlds” as long as things are coherent i.e. before the qubits are measured. Only when the measurement is completed – e.g. at the end of the Shor’s algorithm calculation – you’re allowed to imagine that the worlds split. But it’s too late because by that moment, the whole calculation has already been done in a single (quantum) world, without any help from the parallel worlds. 😉

    (Many more excellent answers are on the site)

Leave a Reply