Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New books mount aggressive but ultimately unpersuasive defenses of multiverses

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 72 posts

Re: New books mount aggressive but ultimately unpersuasive defenses of multiverses

#61

Post by erik_landerholm »

maroonblazer wrote: post #43

From the final paragraph: >But I’m less entertained by multiverse theories than I once was, for a couple of reasons. First, science is in a slump, for reasons both internal and external. It is?? Does anyone know to what he's referring? From my un-scientific vantage point it seems to be thriving.

The large hadron collider hasn’t seen any evidence that SUSY is right. We have been stuck trying to develop a theory of quantum gravity for a long time. We are making a lot of progress in emergent fields, biology especially, but the fundamental fields have stalled on the biggest questions, imo.

Re: New books mount aggressive but ultimately unpersuasive defenses of multiverses

#62

Post by walleeee »

bawolff wrote: post #36
hprotagonist wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will view discussions of the multiverse as akin to medieval philosophers discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Interestingly, this is almost certainly anti-catholic protestant agitprop that lost context. As such, the question never seems to have been asked; similar questions of extreme minutae were widely parodied but were probably never a matter of actual debate or discussion by scholastics.

Similarly, how many actual physicists actually seriously argue about interpretations of quantum mechanics? I'm not a physicist but i'm pretty sure its a thing more talked about by philosophers and the popular press than actual physicists. Not that there is anything wrong with philosophizing and inquiring into metaphysical questions.

> I'm not a physicist but i'm pretty sure its a thing more talked about by philosophers and the popular press than actual physicists.

Right, hence the popular aphorism (among physicists): "Shut up and calculate."

Re: New books mount aggressive but ultimately unpersuasive defenses of multiverses

#63

Post by oceanghost »

tim333 wrote: post #58
oceanghost wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Science is just a tool to make predictions. We cannot test the multiverse theory, which leaves it in the realm of philosophy or religion. 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-- ass…

To me science is more than a tool to make predictions - it's a way of trying to figure out what's going on using experiment, reason and the like. Maybe there are multiple universes or not and maybe we'll be able to test it or not. Who knows, reality is what it is.

That's called scientism, and its often conflated with science.

Just because a theory makes correct predictions, does not mean, necessarily that those mechanisms exist in the actual physical universe. It is entirely possible to make correct predictions with incorrect models.

Re: New books mount aggressive but ultimately unpersuasive defenses of multiverses

#64

Post by teilo »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #54
teilo wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just, like, your opinion, man. It's also a red herring. You stated that the science is settled. It is not. Not even close. "Settled" means that that there is a scientific consensus by all but a fringe, that MWI is the correct interpretation of QM. Of course, that is not the case, as should be blatantly obvious to you. Besides which, nothing in science is ever "settled." It is always open to new interpretations…

> “ Settled" means that that there is a scientific consensus” no, science is not related to consensus. If it were, then religion would be a matter pf physics. Science is unique in that only theories which hold up to the evidence matter, regardless of how many or few people (or experts) believe them. In ~1800, the science against creationism was just as settled as it is today, despite the prevalence of that religious…

I see little difference between the religious dogma of the 19th century and the scientific dogma of the MWI. For it to be remotely "settled," there actually has to be evidence. There is none. It is nothing but a logical model that one chooses because of their philosophical prejudices.

What you are promoting is not science but philosophical posturing.

Re: New books mount aggressive but ultimately unpersuasive defenses of multiverses

#65

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

teilo wrote: post #64
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “ Settled" means that that there is a scientific consensus” no, science is not related to consensus. If it were, then religion would be a matter pf physics. Science is unique in that only theories which hold up to the evidence matter, regardless of how many or few people (or experts) believe them. In ~1800, the science against creationism was just as settled as it is today, despite the prevalence of that religious…

I see little difference between the religious dogma of the 19th century and the scientific dogma of the MWI. For it to be remotely "settled," there actually has to be evidence. There is none. It is nothing but a logical model that one chooses because of their philosophical prejudices. What you are promoting is not science but philosophical posturing.

> “ I see little difference between the religious dogma of the 19th century and the scientific dogma of the MWI.”

That suggests you badly misunderstand MWI or else have your own dogma in terms of how you’ll define it. Either way, comparing MWI to religious dogma is beyond ridiculous.

> “ For it to be remotely "settled," there actually has to be evidence. There is none.”

We have nearly a hundred years of quantum mechanical experimental evidence that supports MWI and doesn’t require no-evidence purely hypothetical extra things to be attached to the theory, like special collapse.

> “ What you are promoting is not science but philosophical posturing.”

Unless you can support this claim, it seems entirely disingenuous and it’s like you expect some purely rhetorical flair to make your point. Copenhagen is closer to your quote than MWI... it’s not even controversial to say so, purely definitional (as non-controversial as it can get).

Re: New books mount aggressive but ultimately unpersuasive defenses of multiverses

#66

Post by teilo »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #65
teilo wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see little difference between the religious dogma of the 19th century and the scientific dogma of the MWI. For it to be remotely "settled," there actually has to be evidence. There is none. It is nothing but a logical model that one chooses because of their philosophical prejudices. What you are promoting is not science but philosophical posturing.

> “ I see little difference between the religious dogma of the 19th century and the scientific dogma of the MWI.” That suggests you badly misunderstand MWI or else have your own dogma in terms of how you’ll define it. Either way, comparing MWI to religious dogma is beyond ridiculous. > “ For it to be remotely "settled," there actually has to be evidence. There is none.” We have nearly a hundred years of quantum mecha…

You have nearly a hundred years of quantum mechanical experimental evidence that supports CI as equally as MWI. But you have no experimental evidence of any kind which would allow you to rule out CI, or any of the many other interpretations, in favor of the MWI.

See, no one disagrees about the evidence itself. That's why there is an "I" in "MWI." It is one of many possible interpretations of the evidence.

So that puts your whole "settled" nonsense into the category of philosophical posturing. You have a preference for the the MWI, but you have no scientific reason for it. That is why your reasons are entirely philosophical.

Re: New books mount aggressive but ultimately unpersuasive defenses of multiverses

#67

Post by fourthark »

admax88q wrote: post #59
fourthark wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably stuff like, we still don’t have any new particles despite spending a lot of money smashing stuff. And string theory looks like it may have wasted a lot of people’s time with no result.

We do have new particles. The Higgs Boson was observed. Unless you don't count that because it was observed where we predicted it, but then you're just punishing scientists for being right.

Some people were hoping for more particles.

I’m not sure I agree... was just trying to explain why there is a perception of progress slowing down.

Re: New books mount aggressive but ultimately unpersuasive defenses of multiverses

#68

Post by yoz-y »

charlesism wrote: post #42
yoz-y wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there should be any _default_ position before we can even think of an experiment to prove or disprove it.

Why isn’t the Schrödinger's cat thing sufficient? I don’t know much about quantum physics, but if we find situations where matter has odds of behaving a certain way, that seems like evidence. How do we explain events not always having a predictable outcome unless all possible outcomes occur somewhere?

> How do we explain events not always having a predictable outcome unless all possible outcomes occur somewhere?

I think the leap from A to B is unnecessary. "We don't know" is also an acceptable answer.

Re: New books mount aggressive but ultimately unpersuasive defenses of multiverses

#69

Post by coldtea »

charlesism wrote: post #18
Falling3 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the default position should ever be that physical phenomena without empirical evidence exist... Also, what you're describing sounds more like a multi-dimensional (above the ones we're aware of) universe rather than a multiverse.

> what you're describing sounds more like a multi-dimensional (above the ones we're aware of) universe rather than a multiverse. We’re aware of the possibility that we might do something, or could have done something. Does that count as an awareness of higher dimensions? I don’t know enough about physics to understand how a multi-dimensional (above 4D) universe is different than a multiverse. I assumed they were one…

>I don’t know enough about physics to understand how a multi-dimensional (above 4D) universe is different than a multiverse. I assumed they were one and the same concept.

Imagine multiple copies of the same 4D universe.

How about that?

Re: New books mount aggressive but ultimately unpersuasive defenses of multiverses

#70

Post by coldtea »

yoz-y wrote: post #21
charlesism wrote: post #8

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 don't think there should be any _default_ position before we can even think of an experiment to prove or disprove it.

Isn't that a default position itself? Who proved that experiments are necessary or that they settle matters?
Post reply on HN