21–30 of 72 posts
Shouldn’t the default position be that a multiverse exist? A multiverse is what logic suggests (starting with “a point in motion is a line” and moving up to higher dimensions)
I agree that the multiverse is a bit over-hyped. However, some of the author's statements just rub me the wrong way: Science cannot resolve the existence of either God or the multiverse, making agnosticism the only sensible position. Science also can't refute me being a brain in the vat, or the universe having been created last thursday with the appearance of age. It's not only ok to commit to beliefs that cannot be…
Shouldn’t the default position be that a multiverse exist? A multiverse is what logic suggests (starting with “a point in motion is a line” and moving up to higher dimensions)
Shouldn’t the default position be that a multiverse exist? A multiverse is what logic suggests (starting with “a point in motion is a line” and moving up to higher dimensions)
This idea of a multiverse is some metaphysics sprinkled in with the Copenhagen interpretation that boils down to something like this: the total probability of any observed outcome summed with the probability of all possible outcomes is, of course, one.
The metaphysics is this-- assuming that all the outcomes that did not occur did occur in some other unobservable and inaccessible universes.
This is essentially the meaning of the plus symbol in summing probabilities; it separates the observed wavefunction from every other possible wavefunction. It is absurd to draw such a mind-boggling conclusion from a plus sign.
> Today, physicists still lack evidence of other universes, or even good ideas for obtaining evidence. Until this is no longer true, I will view discussions of the multiverse as akin to medieval philosophers discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. One of the biggest lessons of the scientific revolution is that logic alone is a poor predictor of reality. We need at some point to go out and test our…
> Today, physicists still lack evidence of other universes, or even good ideas for obtaining evidence. Until this is no longer true, I will view discussions of the multiverse as akin to medieval philosophers discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. One of the biggest lessons of the scientific revolution is that logic alone is a poor predictor of reality. We need at some point to go out and test our…
> “ The universe supposedly splits, or branches, whenever one quantum particle jostles against another, making their wave functions collapse.” I’m very tired of seeing pop science articles describe this so incorrectly. It’s a similar mistake as describing quantum computing as simultaneously trying a bunch of solution states “in parallel.” The multiverse theory doesn’t imply any “splitting” action and certainly no suc…
The thing missing is an explanation for why we find ourselves in a particular branch. Insisting that this doesn’t require an explanation is never going to be satisfying for some people. I’ll try to explain why, using your random variable sampling analogy, which is telling. In the case of say, sampling from a coin toss random variable, there is indeed a more primitive explanation for why the coin comes up heads or tai…
That question does not really make sense. In every branch, there is 'you' asking about why is being in that particular branch.
I agree that the multiverse is a bit over-hyped. However, some of the author's statements just rub me the wrong way: Science cannot resolve the existence of either God or the multiverse, making agnosticism the only sensible position. Science also can't refute me being a brain in the vat, or the universe having been created last thursday with the appearance of age. It's not only ok to commit to beliefs that cannot be…
Exactly, most people never realize this because they're so used to nonsense like gods and such. There is an infinite number of assertions that cannot be proved or disproved, it doesn't mean that I have any reason to be agnostic about them.
I agree that the multiverse is a bit over-hyped. However, some of the author's statements just rub me the wrong way: Science cannot resolve the existence of either God or the multiverse, making agnosticism the only sensible position. Science also can't refute me being a brain in the vat, or the universe having been created last thursday with the appearance of age. It's not only ok to commit to beliefs that cannot be…
Couldn't you say the same about the author of the article himself? Why is he whining about scientists investigating the multiverse theory rather than doing something more productive with his time? What real world problem was solved with his article? If multiverse theory is escapism, then what the author is doing is a worse form of escapism.
> Today, physicists still lack evidence of other universes, or even good ideas for obtaining evidence. Until this is no longer true, I will view discussions of the multiverse as akin to medieval philosophers discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. One of the biggest lessons of the scientific revolution is that logic alone is a poor predictor of reality. We need at some point to go out and test our…
Many of the greatest scientific discoveries were not testable until decades later.
Would you also have viewed Einstein as just a medieval philosopher back in his day ?