Multiverse News

What WON’T we toss out to defend the multiverse?

Spread the love

Cosmologist Sean Carroll would retire falsifiability as a science idea. Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci defends it.


Jason Rosenhouse: Multiverse is a “done deal,” Occam’s razor doesn’t apply

For why they are srtuck with denying classic principles, see The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology).

What else, one wonders, must disappear, for the multiverse to be real? Will we be left with this?:

But what can one say? In the multiverse, faith will be science.  And  there will still be Darwin, of course. See also: (Multiverse) Cosmologist Lee Smolin challenges classic physicists’ position on time, citing Darwinian evolution

Follow UD News at Twitter!

3 Replies to “What WON’T we toss out to defend the multiverse?

  1. 1
    kairosfocus says:

    News, in-principle falisfiability due to the inherently provisional nature of such conclusions, is embedded in inductive thought. Cannot be extracted from it without destroying the fabric of empirical reasoning, no matter what nail-puller you use. But then, ideologues with agendas typically don’t really care about logic, save to use it when convenient and lay this “tool” aside when it is not. They don’t see that it is not a tool, it is an inherent part of the foundation of reason, the embedded plumb-line. KF

  2. 2
    AnimatedDust says:

    KF, is all this really just not more sophisticated than that behind it all, the wish is the father of the assertion, and that the overriding thought paradigm that drives it all is that what the generic materialist empirically “discovers” is what they want to be true becoming what “is” true? A la Lewontinian prevention of the encroachment of the divine foot?

    It just seems to me that it’s no more complicated than that.

  3. 3
    kairosfocus says:

    AD: A sobering thought, one hopes there is more there than that in at least some cases. KF

    PS: The human vs bot test seems to be malfunctioning, looping in you have made an error where there is none.

Leave a Reply