John Horgan, who took it on the ear some years ago for prophesying the end of science, now asks, provocatively I suppose, whether theorizing about alternative universes is immoral:
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.
And they’re fun too. They’re everything except science, and good on Horgan for pointing it out.
Besides, they only ever existed to provide a universe safe for atheism.
7 Replies to “If you don’t think there are infinitely many universes out there, you are mere Popperazi?”
Isn’t the the appearance of age ie last Thursday-ism hypothesis in the same category? Again it only existed to provide a universe safe for YEC and it too is logically un-falsifiable.
I guess so. If the universe didn’t exist last Wednesday, I am NOT late redeeming my sheepskin.
The Kingdom without the King. The dream of all self-worshipers.
Oddly, though I haven’t read his book, my understanding is that Brian Greene devotes some time to the discussion of simulated universes being among those in the multiverse, including the possibility that our own universe is a simulation.
I say ‘oddly’ because if that’s correct, and if Greene considers such a question/claim to be a live possibility and also a scientific topic, then it seems Greene suggests that (at least some form of) ID is science.
I wouldn’t say it’s “not science.” I would say it’s not falsifiable and I don’t buy it. But I think it qualifies as science.
Denyse writes “Besides, they [multi-verse conjectures] only ever existed to provide a universe safe for atheism.”
Atheism together with philosophical naturalism at least. Naturalism and those who promote it (ie, the aforementioned atheists) must explain everything that ever was, is or shall be in completely naturalistic terms, on the assumption that the universe (or perhaps reality, though they may not be one and the same), is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect. The problem for them, of course, is that sooner or later they run out of probabalistic resources to explain all that needs to be explained…as long as those resources are limited to this cosmos. But, add an infinity of comoses to equation, and virtually anything can happen, and we just “happen to be” in the sort of cosmos where X (you know, the thing we want to explain) can happen. Lucky for us!
Yep, sounds pretty scientific to me…what’s the problem!
“Besides, they only ever existed to provide a universe safe for atheism.”
That is the only usefulness they now, or ever will, have. Well, that, and that they provide empirical evidence that those who endlessly natter on about how “science” and “reason” are always and forever in opposition to “faith” will say and think literally anything so as to avoid thinking, “God Is.”