We thought everyone knew that, but no matter.
A reviewer for the Spectator, introducing Christophe Galfard’s The Universe in Your Hand: A Journey Through Space, Time, and Beyond thinks he is surprising us by telling us that:
Physicists have a nerve. I know one (I’ll call him Mark) who berates every religious person he meets, yet honestly thinks there exist parallel universes, exactly like our own, in which we all have two noses. He refuses to give any credit to Old Testament creation myths and of course sneers at the idea of transubstantiation. But, without any sense of shame, he insists in the same breath that humans are made from the fallout of exploded stars; that it is theoretically possible for a person to decompose on one side of a black hole and recompose on the other, and that there are diamonds in the sky the size of the moon.
If the fundamentalists of the American Midwest want to advance exegesis, they should send their preachers to MIT. Parallel worlds; entire universes smaller than the size of a subatomic particle; the fact that there is real, visible evidence that all possible existences (some of which would have led to the worlds of two noses) were at one stage frozen in time, and that this evidence comes from looking up at the sky when sitting on a sunlounger in the middle of the Pacific Ocean; that there are universes inside universes inside universes, encased like bubbles … all this, says Galfard, ‘may (and should) sound completely crazy to you (it does to me, but I like it)’; yet there are sound and consistent arguments, each built out of the basic ideas of GCSE physics, to justify every word. More.
The maddest argument can be internally sound and consistent. The only thing that gets in the way is the only universe we know of.
See also: How we got to the point where this stuff is thought of as science.
and
Imagine a world of religions that naturalism might indeed be able to explain
Follow UD News at Twitter!
It’s called intellectual incest. When you have a severely restricted meme pool, intellectual incest ensues. The spawns eventually become monstrous and comical at the same time. It kind of reminds me of societies where certain words become taboo and the practice severely restricts the clan’s ability to communicate coherently and even think properly. It turns into a vicious circle, a maelstrom of fiendish stupidity.
Seversky,
If Galfard is right about how he derived his voodoo claims (I have no strong reason to doubt it entirely), it just means that GCSE physics is fundamentally flawed. Which means that a major paradigm shift is about to happen. That is all.
It also means that Galfard is either an idiot or a con artist. But he’s in illustrious company. The physics community is drowning in those.
The ideas & evidence for “Many Worlds” and “Multiverses” is evidence for “Flying Horses” and “Thunder Gods”, Seversky.
If “sound and consistent arguments” lead to the nonsense set forth, something is fundamentally wrong with either the theory or the theorists, maybe both.
It may all turn out to be nonsense but the fact is that physicists are faced with the task of trying to explain some fundamental mysteries such as why did the Big Bang go “bang!” when it did, whence came the laws that govern the observed structure and order of the universe and why is the expansion of the universe apparently accelerating? These are really hard nuts to crack and simply proclaiming it all as God’s creation is not a explanation in the sense that science needs and most people would actually like.
As to this claim:
Actually no, his main claim is certainly not ‘justified’ by physics.
His main claim is:
This is sheer many worlds interpretation (MWI) insanity built out of denying the reality of wave function collapse.
It certainly is not a mainstream opinion in physics.
And if it is taught as THE mainstream interpretation of quantum physics in GCSE quantum physics then it is a grievous error on whomever constructed the syllabus.
Philip Ball recently expressed his dismay with Many Worlds Intepretation here:
Several different interpretations are held by leading quantum physicists.
On page 8 of the following paper we see just 18% accept Everett’s many worlds.
But on page 7 we see that 55% of the scientists accept that the observer plays a fundamental role in the application of the formalism but plays no distinguished physical role
page 7
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069.pdf
But then we also see that only 6% say that the observer plays a distinguished physical role….how is that possible?
This video at 8:18 mark explains the discrepancy and shows how ‘metaphysical prejudice’ drastically alters what physicists are willing to say they believe about quantum mechanics ‘formalism’ from what they say quantum mechanics actually indicates:
Having two noses is small potatoes in the MWI. The following site goes over ’10 Mind-Bending Implications’
As mentioned previously, such insanity comes from denying ‘the actuality of wavefunction collapse’:
Yet, ‘the actuality of wavefunction collapse’ was recently established in the following experiment thus falsifying the claim that the wave function does not actually collapse, i.e. thus falsifying MWI:
I would also like to point out that the most profound confusion in modern physics today, the root of such insanity as MWI and Multiverse, is the fallacious belief that blind causality is superior to agent causality in terms of explanatory power. –
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-565812
And when the agent causality of Theists is rightly let ‘back’ into the picture of physics, as the Christian founders of science originally envisioned, (instead of the epistemological self refuting ‘blind’ causality of atheists), then a unification between Quantum Theory and Relativity is readily achieved in the resurrection of Christ from death:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-548425
Verse:
Quote:
“simply proclaiming it all as God’s creation is not a explanation in the sense that science needs and most people would actually like.”
I, like most people, agree with you Seversky. All great Thiest Scientists agree too. F = ma from a part time theologian for example:)
“is not a explanation in the sense that science needs and most people would actually like.”
So you would prefer a ‘scientific’ theory that says that there are a infinite number of you in parallel universes with two noses over admitting that this is God’s universe created to accomplish exactly what he sees fit to accomplish in it? Namely to accomplish the separation of those who want to be with God for eternity from those who don’t.
Seeing as the consequences of being separated from God for all eternity, where his presence and all his good and perfect attributes are withdrawn, are unimaginably terrifying, I think what you ‘actually like’ for the ultimate answer in physics is severely misplaced to put it very mildly:
Verse:
Seversky:
Newton believed everything was created by a powerful God. Yet, this “handicap” did not prevent him from becoming the father of modern physics. In fact, Newton believed that studying the natural world around him would bring him closer to getting a tiny glimpse of the awesome mind of God.
This was reward enough for Sir Isaac. What have you accomplished lately with your little big-bang-materialist-StarTrek physics religion? I, for one, reject the notion that my creator was some non-descript big bang that never really happened.
Sev
If it’s the truth then we all need it, science or otherwise. Anyone can seek for alternative explanations, but not without admitting that “God created it” remains the best explanation. Failing a better alternative, it is the truth as we understand it.
As for ‘most people’ – I think they accept that God exists and did create the universe with a plan – which includes life after death for humans.
It’s only a very small minority that think it’s worthwhile for science to step outside its own limits and conjecture on what happened before the start of the physical universe.
Science does not yet have explanations for what happened within the universe.